Skip to main content
Download PDF

Health mediation does not reduce the readmission rate of frequent users of emergency departments living in precarious conditions: what lessons can be learned from this randomised controlled trial?

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 24, Article number: 83 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Severe overcrowding of emergency departments (EDs) affects the quality of healthcare. One factor of overcrowding is precariousness, but it has rarely been considered a key factor in designing interventions to improve ED care. Health mediation (HM) aims to facilitate access to rights, prevention, and care for the most vulnerable persons and to raise awareness among healthcare providers about obstacles in accessing healthcare. The primary aim was to determine whether HM intervention for frequent users of EDs (FUED) living in precarious conditions could reduce the readmission rate at 90 days.

Methods

Between February 2019 and May 2022, we enrolled and interviewed 726 FUED in four EDs of southeastern France in this randomised controlled trial. The HM intervention started in the ED and lasted 90 days. In addition to the primary endpoint (first readmission at 90 days), secondary endpoints (readmission at 30 and 180 days, number of hospitalisations at 30, 90, 180 days, admissions for the same reasons as the first admission) were also studied. The outcomes were measured in the ED information systems. Statistical methods included an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis. Comparisons were adjusted for gender, age, ED, and health mediator.

Results

46% of patients reported attending the ED because they felt their life was in danger, and 42% had been referred to the ED by the emergency medical dispatch centre or their GP; 40% of patients were considered to be in a serious condition by ED physicians. The proportion of patients who were readmitted at 90 days was high but did not differ between the control and the HM intervention groups (31.7% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.23). There was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcome measures between the control and HM intervention groups. Per-protocol analysis also showed no significant difference for the primary and secondary endpoints.

Conclusions

This randomised controlled trial did not show that our health mediation intervention was effective in reducing the use of emergency services by FUED living in precarious conditions. Some limitations are discussed: the duration of the intervention (90 days), the long-term effects (> 6 months), the involvement of the ED staff.

Trial registration

Registered on clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03660215 on 4th September 2018.

Peer Review reports

Background

Iterative use of Emergency Departments (EDs) is a major topic in health services research. This affects the quality and efficiency of care, results in lost opportunities for patients, and creates financial losses [1,2,3,4]. Many researchers have attempted to identify the characteristics of FUED. These characteristics are many and varied, even between studies and study populations: age, social isolation, chronic diseases and comorbidities, psychiatric problems, economic hardship, being unemployed or dependent on government welfare, being uninsured, living closer to ED [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Many of these characteristics affect people living in precarious conditions. Social interventions, personalised and coordinated care, and health education to improve health empowerment could be of benefit to this population as well as to EDs [11]. However, interventional studies in these populations are lacking and the overall effectiveness of strategies to reduce the readmission rate of FUED is still under debate [12,13,14].

Health mediation to reduce health inequities

Health mediation (HM) is one of the key strategies that the French government has put in place to combat health inequities [15]. HM emerged at the end of the 80s for patients living with AIDS and mental diseases [16]. HM is intended to be a proximity interface aimed, on the one hand at providing access to rights, to prevention and to care for populations presenting various factors of vulnerability that distance them from the health systems, and on the other hand at raising awareness in the actors of the health system to the specificities of these populations and to the obstacles they encounter in their healthcare pathways [16, 17]. HM is based on the major principles of “going towards” populations, health and social professionals and institutions and “doing with” in a logic of empowerment of individuals [16, 18]. In some countries, work has been done with professionals close to health mediators (HMrs), such as community health workers (CHW) highlighting the benefits of their interventions in hospitals [19, 20]. In some ways, HMrs are close to CHW, in the sense that they serve as a link between health/social services and the community to facilitate access to services and improve quality-of-service delivery. HMrs also build individual and community capacity by increasing health knowledge and self-sufficiency through a range of activities such as outreach, education, informal counselling and social support. However, HMrs are not always trusted members of the community served or the neighbourhoods, and they do not provide education, support or advocacy at a community level but only at the individual level. Although HM has been widely promoted by the French Ministry of Health and many actors in the healthcare system, and its implementation has been evaluated in the context of health promotion, of the management of chronic and mental illnesses and of the access to health in vulnerable people, tangible data are not available on its effectiveness on access to health, and the quality and efficiency of health care in these populations [16, 21,22,23,24].

An HM intervention targeting deprived FUED, starting in ED and consisting of education actions and help on navigating the care system could reduce readmissions to ED. After the examinations, care and recommendations have been made, patients living in precarious conditions are generally discharged from EDs with a report to their general practitioner (which they do not always have), one or more prescriptions for tests or medication that they do not always understand or that they do not know how to carry out, cannot or do not want to carry out, or do not identify as priorities. Emergency physicians and most nurses do not have specific training or the time to determine psychosocial needs and most do not know what resources are out in the community to fill in the gaps. Social services are attached to EDs but are not sufficiently staffed and trained in empowerment, care pathways, health literacy and outreach techniques [25]. Although HM seems appropriate to reduce iterative ED use in this population, HM has never been evaluated in this context.

A need for tools adapted to deprived frequent users of emergency departments

The two main strategies tested to reduce iterative ED use are accompaniment by CHWs and, in particular, case management. Very few studies have reported on the impact of CHW on FUED. Yet CHW could help leverage EDs as an entry point into the healthcare system, reduce costs per patients, improve overall health outcomes and elevate some of the ED physicians’ responsibility [26,27,28]. Several systematic reviews suggested that case management could reduce ED visits [12, 14, 29, 30] and be cost-effective [31], but few specifically targeted vulnerable patients [13, 29, 30]. Case management involves multi-disciplinary teams including physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers and/or housing and community resource liaisons, who develop tailored care strategies and protocols for patients [32,33,34,35]. Little is known about the impact of case management on deprived FUED, and interventional trials in this population are crucial.

To address the issue of iterative use of EDs among persons living in precarious conditions, we set up a research project whose main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of HM in EDs on the readmission rate of this population. We have already shown that HM is well accepted by patients and ED staff alike, but its efficacy remains to be proved [36]. The primary aim of this study was to demonstrate that health mediation intervention for FUED living in precarious conditions can reduce the readmission rate in EDs at 90 days. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the impact of HM on the readmission rates in EDs at 30 and 180 days, and on the number of readmissions in EDs and hospitalisations at 30, 90 and 180 days.

Methods

Study population

This two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted in four EDs in southeastern France. Two EDs were in densely populated urban areas with high levels of precariousness (North University Hospital, and European Hospital, in northern and central districts of Marseille); the two other EDs were in less urbanized areas characterised by pockets of neo-rural precariousness (Arles and Manosque). Each year, these 4 EDs handle 23% of all ED stays in the counties where they are located; 1,830,495 people aged over 18 live in these counties, with a density of 183 inhabitants per km² and a poverty rate of 17.8% (such as defined by the National Institute for Statistics and Economic studies). The annual use of EDs is 42% (number of ED stays/population aged 18 and over). These four EDs provide mainly medical and surgical health care (95%, including 29% for traumas); psychiatry and toxicology represents 4% of ED stays [37].

Patient enrolment began in February 2019, and the last patient was enrolled in November 2021. The last follow-up was in May 2022. Men and women presenting to one of the participating EDs were eligible to participate if they were at least 18 years old; had visited the same ED once in the 90 days prior to enrolment, or twice in the last 6 months, or three or more times in the last 12 months; were able to communicate in French (even if they could only speak French poorly); understood the purpose of the study; and had an EPICES social precariousness score greater than 30. The EPICES score estimates the level of precariousness using 11 binary items: marital status (one item), health insurance status (one item), economic status (three items), family support (three items) and leisure activity. It can vary from 0 (no precariousness) to 100 (extreme precariousness), with 30 being the cut-off point for classifying people as being in a precarious situation [38]. .

Patients were not included if they were unable to give informed consent, could not respond to a face-to-face interview (confused, acutely psychotic, with severe neurodegenerative disorders or intoxicated), were under guardianship, legal protection or imprisonment, were living in a nursing home or other health and social care facility with a care team, or were in a life-threatening emergency situation. Patients living in an area initially considered too remote for the mediator to visit were also excluded.

The health mediators (HMrs) (see below) assigned to the study screened all patients attending the ED (including those who had attended the previous evening or during the night and were still present in the ED) for age, place of residence, and whether they had attended the ED during the period used as an inclusion criterion. HMrs were present on weekdays between 7 am and 8 pm, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Each patient with no exclusion criteria was interviewed to complete the EPICES social precariousness questionnaire. If the EPICES score was compatible with the inclusion criterion and the medical staff did not object on medical grounds, the patient was given full information about the study and the intervention procedures, and signed a written consent form.

Collected information

All patients were interviewed by HMrs to collect socio-demographic characteristics: age, gender, residence, distance to ED, marital status, education level, occupational status, income and migration, public and complementary health insurance coverage, allocation of various allowances, access to general practitioner, quality of life (WHOQOL-Bref) and reason for ED admission. Initial complaints, severity score, main and related pathologies, discharge mode (return home or hospitalisation) and duration of hospitalisation were collected from the hospital information system at baseline, 30, 90 and 180 days. The initial complaints were classified using the thesaurus of the French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU), and the final diagnoses were matched according to their International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes. We used the SFMU severity score to classify patients into 5 categories (1–2: lesion status and/or functional prognosis judged stable, without (1) or with (2) further diagnostic or therapeutic action required; 3: lesion status and/or functional prognosis judged likely to deteriorate in the ED, but not life-threatening; 4–5: life-threatening pathological situation, without (4) or with (5) resuscitation techniques). The REDCAP software was used to enter all the information collected [39].

Health mediation intervention

Enrolled patients were randomised to one of two arms at the time of their ED visit: ‘control’ (usual care) or ‘experimental’ (HM), by the HMrs according to a randomisation list generated by an independent statistician using a 4-block randomisation prior to the start of the study, for each of the four EDs, and implemented in the REDCAP database software [40]. Once a patient met the study inclusion criteria, was informed of the study objectives and procedures, and signed the informed consent, the HMr entered data from the EPICES social precariousness questionnaire into the REDCAP software, which checked this score (30+) and told the HMr which group (control or experimental) the patient had been allocated to. Randomisation therefore took place immediately after enrolment on computers in the EDs of the participating hospitals. In the experimental arm, the patient was managed by an HMr from the time of admission to the ED and followed up for 90 days, in accordance with the recommendations of the French High Authority for Health [18]; examples of HM are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Examples of health mediation
Full size table

The five HMrs were full-time paid staff with 2–5 years post-baccalaureate education and a diploma in social work, with some experience in the health sector; medical background was not required. Qualified applicants were selected on the basis of good communication skills, good knowledge of social rights and procedures and common health care pathways, ability/experience in teamwork and networking with health/social professionals inside and outside the EDs, and in managing relationships with disadvantaged people in an ethical and equitable manner. They were initially trained and supervised by a senior HMr (for attitudes and behaviour towards these people) and a general practitioner, with routine group or individual meetings to present challenging cases.

The tasks of HMrs consisted of (1) administering a questionnaire on socio-demographics, quality of life, health literacy, and reasons of admission to ED; (2) evaluating the socio-medical needs of patients according to ad hoc guidelines; (3) defining objectives corresponding to activities and resources of the services requested; (4) accompanying persons towards prevention and care, and helping them understand how to access social and health care; (5) acting as an interpreter and bridge to the persons concerned but also to health professionals and social workers; (6) adopting a benevolent stance and active listening in order to detect individual and collective problems that might require specific information or prevention. All of these tasks were carried out with a view to improving the capacity for health empowerment of the patients.

Measurements – outcomes

Primary outcome: first readmission in ED at 90 days after inclusion.

Secondary outcomes: ED readmission at 30 and 180 days, number of ED readmissions at 30, 90 and 180 days, number of hospitalisations after ED readmission at 90 days, admission to ED at 30, 90 and 180 days for the same reason as the first admission.

Sample size

The sample size was calculated to detect an efficacy of the intervention on the primary endpoint: 4% in the intervention group versus 10% in the control group, with an attrition rate of 15%, a significance level of 0.05 and power of 0.80. Based on these assumptions, the total required sample size was estimated to be 726 patients (363 subjects per group).

Statistical methods

Groups were compared from their initial allocation, regardless of adherence to the HM intervention (intention-to-treat analysis); a second analysis was performed (per-protocol analysis) comparing the primary and secondary endpoints in the control group to those in patients who met the HMrs at least once face-to-face after inclusion, at least three times by phone, and did not abandon the intervention during the 90-day follow up by the HM. A subgroup analysis in per-protocol patients was performed on patients with low severity scores (CCMU 1–2), and then on patients living in very precarious conditions (EPICES score 60+). Continuous variables are expressed as means and SDs or as median with range (min-max), and categorical variables are reported as count and percentages. Comparisons of mean values between two groups were performed using student t-test or Mann-Whitney U. Comparisons of percentages were performed using Chi-Square test or (Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate). Ordinal and binomial multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyse the effect of health mediation intervention, to take into account age, gender, HMr and ED. All the tests were two-sided, the statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Among patients assessed for eligibility, 720 patients were included; 178/358 (49.7%) patients of the intervention group were included in the per-protocol analysis (Fig. 1). With regard to precariousness, it is noteworthy that 217 patients (30.6%) had no qualifications, 95 (13.4%) were illiterate, 236 (33%) had not always lived in France, 243 (33.9%) lived alone, 270 (53.3%) were unemployed and 409 (56.8%) were in a very precarious situation (Table 2). With regard to healthcare, 320 (49.3%) had full health insurance coverage for a chronic illness and 86 (12%) received a disability allowance, 96 (13.4%) did not have a GP, 529 (74.8%) had consulted their GP in the previous three months, 375 (71.4%) had reported having no difficulty in contacting their GP (Table 3). All domains of quality of life estimated by the WHO-QOL-BREF were below the average measured in a representative sample of the French population [41]: physical health (51.7 vs.76.9), psychological health (61.3 vs. 67), social relationships (67.6 vs. 74.5) (Table 4).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram

Full size image
Table 2 Socio-demographic characteristics in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol groups (at enrolment)
Full size table
Table 3 Access to health care prior to first ED admission and quality of life, in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol groups (at enrolment)
Full size table

Half of the patients lived less than 15 min from the ED, 303 (42.2%) had travelled by ambulance and 120 (16.7%) had walked or used public transportation (Table 4). The main reason given by 326 (45.7%) patients for attending the ED was that they felt their life was in danger, followed by the fact that they had been referred to the ED by the emergency medical dispatch centre or their GP (301: 42.1%). On arrival in ED, 301 patients (40%) were considered by the medical staff to be in a serious condition (injury status and/or functional prognosis deemed likely to worsen in the ED, but not life-threatening, or life-threatening pathological situation with or without immediate resuscitation) (Table 4). Cardiovascular events (188: 26.1%) and traumatic/rheumatologic disorders (152: 21.1%) were the most frequent causes (Table 4). 142 patients (19.8%) were hospitalised following their first admission to the ED (at enrolment). The proportion of patients with low severity score (CCMU 1) at admission in our sample (46 patients: 6.4%) was lower than in the regional average (9.4%). The per-protocol and intent-to-treat populations did not differ in any of the characteristics measured.

Table 4 Admission to emergency departments (ED) in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol groups (at enrolment)
Full size table

The proportion of patients who were readmitted at 90 days was high but did not differ between the control and the HM intervention groups (31.7% vs. 36.3, p = 0.23) (Table 5). There was no significant difference between the control and HM intervention groups for any of the secondary outcome measures (Table 5). The per-protocol analysis also did not identify any significant difference for the primary and secondary endpoints (Table 5). The same analyses, performed only in patients with a low severity score at enrolment, and then in those with a high severity score (EPICES score 60+) showed no significant differences between the control and HM intervention groups for any of the outcomes measured.

Table 5 Readmissions and re-hospitalisations to ED according to the health mediation intervention
Full size table

Discussion

While our previous social-psychological analysis showed that both FUED living in precarious conditions and ED professionals recognised the needs to address bio-psycho-social distress and the utility of HM [36], the results of our randomised trial showed no effect of HM on 90-day readmission rates or any of the secondary outcomes.

We compared the characteristics of the patients enrolled in our randomised trial with the available data from the EDs of the same region [37], and when not available to the national data, with the caveat that the enrolment period included the Covid pandemic and the lockdown periods. First, the proportion of women and the mean age were higher in our sample than those reported by the EDs in the same region, 53.8% vs. 48.4%, 47.8 vs. 45 years respectively [37]. The proportion of patients with a low admission severity score (CCMU 1) in our sample was lower than the regional average (6.4% vs. 9.4%). In contrast, the proportion of patients with a high severity score (CCMU 4–5) was higher in our sample than in the region (5% vs. 2.0%) while ours were less likely to be admitted to hospital at ED discharge (19.8% vs. 24.9%). We also found that the proportion of patients admitted to the EDs for trauma was lower in our sample than in the region (11.5% vs. 29%), while the proportion of patients admitted for psychiatric or toxicological reasons was higher (9.4% vs. 4%). All domains of quality of life estimated by the WHO-QOL-BREF were below the average in a representative sample of the French population [41]. Relative to regional and national observations, the FUED in our sample were more likely to be women, older, have psychiatric disorders and a poorer quality of life, more likely to be admitted for serious health and vital conditions, and less likely to be admitted for trauma, which is consistent with the literature data [5,6,7,8,9,10]. It is interesting to note that most FUED in our sample had a GP and had consulted a GP in the last three months, indicating a precarious state of health rather than difficulties in accessing healthcare.

Two main methodological issues should be discussed to explain the lack of effect of HM on the readmission rates at 30, 90 and 180 days, the first concerning the characteristics of the patients enrolled in the trial and the second concerning the HM intervention.

Patient profile may help explain why HM did not work

A recurring methodological issue in the evaluation of interventions is how to define a FUED [13]. The definition generally varies between 3 and 5 admissions per year [9, 42,43,44]. Our study used a rather low criterion (at least 3 ED admissions per year). However, 44.3% of the patients enrolled in our trial were readmitted at least once at 180 days (including 21.6% at least twice). Another issue is the heterogeneity of patients and their reasons for presenting to the ED raised by Raven et al. [13]. In our sample, the reasons for ED re-use were very diverse: 25.6% had returned to the ED for cardiovascular reasons, while 21.7% had come for trauma or rheumatological problems. It should also be noted that 42% of the patients had been referred by an emergency medical regulation department or a general practitioner, and 44.9% had felt in danger on first presentation. It is uncertain whether an HM intervention can be effective in these patients. Rather than using this criterion alone (being a FUED and living in precarious conditions), interventions should start with a thorough social, psychosocial and health assessment of whether and how an intervention is likely to prevent repeat admissions, as a result of an accurate joint medical and social assessment, and therefore to target only these FUED.

Another issue is the definition of precariousness and its use to attribute an intervention to a FUED. Several terms or dimensions have often been used in papers investigating the factors related to iterative ED use: social vulnerability, deprivation, unemployment, economic hardship…. The causes and dimensions of precariousness are multiple and affect heterogeneous populations [45]. Precariousness appears to be a multidimensional dynamic process, the result of a series of events experienced in different areas of an individual’s life (housing, employment, culture, education, family and social relations, physical and mental health…) [46, 47]. In our trial, we chose the EPICES score which has demonstrated its value in identifying people in precarious situations who are at increased risk of health problems and are not recognised by the criteria of the socio-administrative definition [48]. Based on this score, we enrolled patients with varied vulnerabilities (social and material deprivation, health and financial difficulties), some of which can be reached only by a long-term HM, and/or accepted by patients. Even if the diagnosis of needs made by the HMs allowed the intervention to be tailored, it is likely that some patients did not feel sufficiently concerned or motivated by an intervention offered during their visit to the ED. Half of the patients in the intervention arm did not accept more than one face-to-face meeting, had fewer than three telephone contacts and/or did not follow up with the HM, which highlights the difficulty of engaging a majority of patients in HM. HM should be offered only to patients who are able or fully willing to benefit from it. Therefore, the concept of precariousness does not seem to be the only criterion to be used in the evaluation of interventions aimed at reducing the use of emergency services. A detailed assessment of the components of precariousness would be more appropriate for selecting FUED who could be helped by an intervention aimed at reducing the risk of repeated use of ED.

Is health mediation an appropriate tool to reduce the iterative use of EDs?

Initially, HM focused on persons living with AIDS and mental health diseases, and then expanded to patients with other chronic conditions, but was not designed for FUEDs [16, 23]. In our trial, 13.4% reported not having a GP, a slightly higher proportion than in the general population, and 24.3% had not seen a GP in the last three months, despite a higher prevalence of chronic diseases and a poorer quality of life than the general population. These findings mean that less than a quarter of our sample needed strong support. In future evaluations, HMs should focus their attention and resources on the most vulnerable patients, who are the hardest to reach. In the qualitative analysis of the intervention, we noticed that many deprived persons discontinued their telephone subscription because of financial issues, had technical difficulties to listen to their voice messages, and faced constraints/barriers to respect their appointments [36]. The COVID 19 pandemic and its lockdown periods also affected the organisation and the burden of EDs and HM, and enhanced the isolation of patients and the difficulties of remaining in contact with them. The HMrs were obliged to favour phone contacts instead of face-to-face meetings, and several patients were lost to follow up. Our experience highlights the need for a very high level of investment in human resources and the need to identify and focus on the most vulnerable patients, which also raises the issue of stigma and the need for clear explanations to patients when HM is offered [44].

Another difficulty we encountered was working with the medical and social staff of the ED. The HMrs were present in the ED, in contact with the ED staff and very well accepted [36]. However, the HMrs did not always manage to involve the ED medical and social staff sufficiently in the discharge care plan, mainly because of the work overload. The ED staff showed high expectations of HMrs, but several ED professionals reported that they were faced with intense assignments and a high psycho-emotional load on a daily basis, which led to feelings of dissatisfaction when caring for the FUED living in precarious conditions. A great deal of training and support is needed for ED staff, and it is essential that HMrs are fully integrated into the ED staff so that decisions about treatment take into account precariousness and social vulnerability.

In their scoping review, Richard et al. identified the conditions for the success and the feasibility of HM, in particular the status and training of HMrs [23]. They also noted that most papers took the effectiveness of HM for granted and only presented an analysis of the conditions. It is now essential to define the profile of patients who can benefit from HM in order to improve the health care indicators, including ED use, as well as the methods and duration of HM. Our intervention was designed for a maximum support period of 90 days to achieve our main objective of reducing ED readmission. Our qualitative analysis showed that some patients would have liked a longer period of support, which would have allowed them to be better managed in the long term in outpatient settings [36]. The lack of evidence that HM reduces the number of ED re-use highlights the difficulty to involve patients living in precarious conditions. A longer-term intervention based on a more holistic approach and targeting both the capacities of individuals and the environmental conditions in which they find themselves may be more effective in reducing the frequent use of emergency departments in the long term [49, 50].

Conclusion

Although health mediation seemed to be a promising solution at the end of our qualitative study [36], our study did not show that it was effective in reducing the use of emergency services by vulnerable frequent users of ED. Interventions targeting this population living in precarious conditions should aim to accurately identify their social, psychosocial and medical needs, involve ED staff and train them on the issue of precariousness, with a view to long-term health empowerment.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AIDS:

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

CHW:

Community Health Worker

CM:

Case Management

COVID:

COronaVIrus Disease

ED:

Emergency Department

EPICES:

Evaluation de la Précarité et des Inégalités de santé dans les Centres d’Examens de Santé (Evaluation of precariousness and health inequalities in health examination centers)

HM:

Health Mediation

HMrs:

Health Mediators

WHOQOL-BREF:

World Health Organization Quality Of Life

References

  1. Cameron PA. Hospital overcrowding: a threat to patient safety? Med J Aust. 2006;184(5):203–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirby SE, Dennis SM, Jayasinghe UW, Harris MF. Patient related factors in frequent readmissions: the influence of condition, access to services and patient choice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1).

  3. Burns TR. Contributing factors of frequent use of the emergency department: a synthesis. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017;35:51–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. LaCalle E, Rabin E. Frequent users of emergency departments: the myths, the data, and the policy implications. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(1):42–8. 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bieler G, Paroz S, Faouzi M, Trueb L, Vaucher P, Althaus F, et al. Social and Medical Vulnerability Factors of Emergency Department Frequent Users in a Universal Health Insurance System: Frequent ED users in switzerland. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(1):63–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Byrne M, Murphy AW, Plunkett PK, McGee HM, Murray A, Bury G. Frequent attenders to an emergency department: a study of primary health care use, medical profile, and psychosocial characteristics. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(3):309–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fulde GWO, Duffy M. Emergency department frequent flyers: unnecessary load or a lifeline? Med J Aust. 2006;184(12):595–595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Howard R, Hannaford A, Weiland T. Factors associated with re-presentation to emergency departments in elderly people with pain. Aust Health Rev Publ Aust Hosp Assoc. 2014;38(4):461–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Locker TE, Baston S, Mason SM, Nicholl J. Defining frequent use of an urban emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(6):398–401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. van Tiel S, Rood PPM, Bertoli-Avella AM, Erasmus V, Haagsma J, van Beeck E, et al. Systematic review of frequent users of emergency departments in non-US hospitals: state of the art. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015;22(5):306–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ostermeyer B, Baweja NUA, Schanzer B, Han J, Shah AA. Frequent utilizers of emergency departments: characteristics and intervention opportunities. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(1):42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moe J, Kirkland SW, Rawe E, Ospina MB, Vandermeer B, Campbell S et al. Effectiveness of Interventions to Decrease Emergency Department Visits by Adult Frequent Users: A Systematic Review. Gratton MC, editor. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(1):40–52.

  13. Raven MC, Kushel M, Ko MJ, Penko J, Bindman AB. The Effectiveness of Emergency Department Visit Reduction Programs: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(4):467–e48315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Soril LJJ, Leggett LE, Lorenzetti DL, Noseworthy TW, Clement FM. Reducing Frequent Visits to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review of Interventions. Gupta V, editor. PLOS One. 2015;10(4):e0123660.

  15. Cornu Pauchet M. Discriminations et accès aux soins des personnes en situation de précarité: Regards. 2018;53(1):43–56.

  16. Gerbier-Aublanc M. La médiation en santé: contours et enjeux d’un métier interstitiel. L’exemple des immi-grant·e·s vivant avec le VIH en France. 2020. https://www.ceped.org/IMG/pdf/wp45.pdf.

  17. Lahmidi N, Lemonnier V. Médiation en santé dans les squats et les bidonvilles. Rhizome. 2018;68(2):10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haute Autorité de Santé. La médiation en santé pour les personnes éloignées des programmes de prévention et de soins. HAS; 2017.

  19. Lefeuvre D, Dieng M, Lamara F, Raguin G, Michon C. [Community health workers in HIV/AIDS care]. Sante Publique Vandoeuvre–Nancy Fr. 2014;26(6):879–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McCollum R, Gomez W, Theobald S, Taegtmeyer M. How equitable are community health worker programmes and which programme features influence equity of community health worker services? A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1).

  21. Haschar-Noé N, Basson JC. La médiation comme voie d’accès aux droits et aux services en santé des populations vulnérables. Le Cas De La Case De santé et de l’Atelier santé ville des quartiers Nord De Toulouse. Rev DÉpidémiologie Santé Publique. 2019;67:S58–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Haschar-Noé N, Bérault F. La médiation en santé? Une innovation sociale?? Obstacles, formations et besoins. Santé Publique. 2019;31(1):31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Richard E, Vandentorren S, Cambon L. Conditions for the success and the feasibility of health mediation for healthcare use by underserved populations: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e062051.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Basson JC, Haschar-Noé N, Lang T, Maguin F, Boulaghaf L. Recherche interventionnelle en santé des populations et lutte contre les inégalités sociales de santé: les partenariats « en train de se faire » de la Case de Santé de Toulouse, France. Glob Health Promot. 2021;28(1suppl):24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bodenmann P, Kasztura M, Graells M, Schmutz E, Chastonay O, Canepa-Allen M, et al. Healthcare Providers’ perceptions of challenges with frequent users of Emergency Department Care in Switzerland: a qualitative study. Inq J Health Care Organ Provis Financ. 2021;58:004695802110281.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Foster B, Dawood K, Pearson C, Manteuffel J, Levy P. Community Health Workers in the Emergency Department—can they help with chronic hypertension care. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2019;21(7).

  27. Kwan BM, Rockwood A, Bandle B, Fernald D, Hamer MK, Capp R. Community Health workers: addressing client objectives among frequent Emergency Department users. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018;24(2):146–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin MP, Blanchfield BB, Kakoza RM, Vaidya V, Price C, Goldner JS, et al. editors. -based care coordination reduces costs for frequent ED users. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(12):762–6.

  29. Althaus F, Paroz S, Hugli O, Ghali WA, Daeppen JB, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, et al. Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(1):41–e5242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bodenmann P, Velonaki VS, Griffin JL, Baggio S, Iglesias K, Moschetti K, et al. Case Management may reduce Emergency Department frequent use in a Universal Health Coverage System: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(5):508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, Okin RL. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial⋆. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(2):155–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Grazioli VS, Moullin JC, Kasztura M, Canepa-Allen M, Hugli O, Griffin J, et al. Implementing a case management intervention for frequent users of the emergency department (I-CaM): an effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoot NR, Aronsky D. Systematic Review of Emergency Department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(2):126–e1361.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Oberlin M, Andrès E, Behr M, Kepka S, Le Borgne P, Bilbault P. La saturation de la structure des urgences et le rôle de l’organisation hospitalière: réflexions sur les causes et les solutions. Rev Médecine Interne. 2020;41(10):693–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. von Allmen M, Grazioli VS, Kasztura M, Chastonay O, Moullin JC, Hugli O, et al. Does Case Management provide support for staff facing frequent users of emergency departments? A comparative mixed-method evaluation of ED staff perception. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Naït Salem R, Rotily M, Apostolidis T, Odena S, Lamouroux A, Chischportich C, et al. Health mediation: an intervention mode for improving emergency department care and support for patients living in precarious conditions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Panorama 2019 des structures d’urgence de la région PACA, Region PACA. IESS; 2019 p. 136. https://ies-sud.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Panorama_2019_iess.pdf.

  38. Labbe E, Blanquet M, Gerbaud L, Poirier G, Sass C, Vendittelli F, et al. A new reliable index to measure individual deprivation: the EPICES score. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(4):604–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Garcia KKS, Abrahão AA. Research Development using REDCap Software. Healthc Inf Res. 2021;27(4):341–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Efird J. Blocked randomization with randomly selected Block sizes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;8(1):15–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Baumann C, Erpelding ML, Régat S, Collin JF, Briançon S. The WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire: French adult population norms for the physical health, psychological health and social relationship dimensions. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010;58(1):33–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bobashev G, Warren L, Wu LT. Predictive model of multiple emergency department visits among adults: analysis of the data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):280. Aw.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Malebranche M, Grazioli VS, Kasztura M, Hudon C, Bodenmann P. Case management for frequent emergency department users: no longer a question of if but when, where and how. Can J Emerg Med. 2021;23(1):12–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schaad L, Graells M, Kasztura M, Schmutz E, Moullin J, Hugli O, et al. Perspectives of frequent users of emergency departments on a Case Management intervention: a qualitative study. Inq J Med Care Organ Provis Financ. 2023;60:469580231159745.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Han C. Precarity, Precariousness, and vulnerability. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2018;47(1):331–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Béguinet S. La représentation Sociale Du Risque de précarité chez les étudiants. Commun Organ. 2013;(43):227–52.

  47. Pierret R. Qu’est-Ce que la précarité ? Socio. 2013;(2):307–30.

  48. Sass C, Guéguen R, Moulin JJ, Abric L, Dauphinot V, Dupré C, et al. Comparaison Du score individuel de précarité des centres d’examens de santé, EPICES, à La définition socio-administrative de la précarité. Santé Publique. 2006;18(4):513.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Maton KI. Empowering community settings: agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(1–2):4–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wallersteing N. What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006 p. 37. (Health Evidence Network report). http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E88086.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the patients and professionals in the emergency departments of Hôpital Nord, Marseille (Dr, Aurélia Bordais, Pr Antoine Roch and the staff); Hôpital Européen, Marseille (Dr Aymeric Vasseur, Jeremy Pavon and the staff), Centre Hospitalier Louis Raffalli, Manosque (Dr Anne-Sophie Peron, Dr Pierre Mingasson, Dr Nicole Morati, Marie-Helene Mandaroux and the staff), and Centre Hospitalier Joseph Imbert, Arles (Dr François Daltroff, Dr Maurice Saidi, Alexandra Ferrand, Arnaud Duret and the staff). We also thank the health mediators (Ella Ragot, Fatima Hassani, Jean Michel Amata, Dalila Soudjay, Ana-Cristina Rojas-Vergara); the In Citta Association for the training in health mediation (Julien Perrin and Valeria Mantello); all the APHM staff who supported the project: Dr Karine Baumstarck, Dr Anne Galinier, Olivier Gauche, Margaux Vieille, Claire Morando, Richard Malkoun, Frédérique Durieux, Mariola Klimkowska. We are grateful to the two territorial support platforms APPORT-Santé and PRATIC-Santé for their backing.

Funding

Research reported in this manuscript was funded by PREPS 17–0633/Ministère de la Santé (Programme de Recherche sur la Performance du système de Soins (PREPS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche sur les services de santé et la qualité de vie (CEReSS), Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France

    Michel Rotily, Anderson Loundou, Mohamed Boucekine & Pascal Auquier

  2. Service des Urgences, Hôpital Nord, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France

    Nicolas Persico

  3. Centre de santé hospitalo-universitaire des Aygalades, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France

    Aurore Lamouroux & Ana Cristina Rojas-Vergara

  4. Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale (LPS), Aix Marseille Université, Aix en Provence, Marseille, France

    Themistoklis Apostolidis

  5. Laboratoire d’Economie et de Sociologie du Travail, Aix Marseille Université, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix en Provence, Marseille, France

    Sophie Odena

  6. SCOP Regards Santé, Marseille, France

    Celia Chischportich

Authors
  1. Michel Rotily
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Persico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aurore Lamouroux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Cristina Rojas-Vergara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anderson Loundou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohamed Boucekine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Themistoklis Apostolidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sophie Odena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Celia Chischportich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pascal Auquier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR planned and designed this study. ALa, ACRV, TA, SO, CC and PA amended the study design and the health mediation intervention. MR, ALo and MB performed the statistical analysis. MR drafted the paper. NP, ALa, ACRV, TA, SO, CC and PA reviewed and approved this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Rotily.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval and consent to participate in this study were granted by the Ile de France III personal protection committee on 24/07/2018 (Reference Am8211-1-3621-RM, EUDRACT 2018-A01851-54), and amended on 02/07/2019. All methods were conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rotily, M., Persico, N., Lamouroux, A. et al. Health mediation does not reduce the readmission rate of frequent users of emergency departments living in precarious conditions: what lessons can be learned from this randomised controlled trial?. BMC Emerg Med 24, 83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01000-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01000-2

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us