Speeding up the clinical pathways by accessing emergency departments

  • Rosella Levaggi
  • Marcello MontefioriEmail author
  • Luca Persico
Original Paper


Inappropriate emergency admissions create overcrowding and may reduce the quality of emergency care. In Italy, overcrowding is further exacerbated by patients who use emergency admissions as a shortcut to avoid the general practitioner (GP) gateway. In this paper, we investigate access to emergency departments (EDs) by patients with non-severe medical conditions and their willingness to wait. Population data for ED accesses in Liguria (an Italian administrative region) in 2016 were used to estimate the number of strategic accesses and waiting time elasticities of low-severity patients. Our results show that the practice of using EDs to skip gatekeeping is a serious problem. The percentage of patients who engage in such practice vary from 8.7 to 9.9% of non-urgent patients; they generally prefer to access more specialized hospitals, especially during weekdays, when GPs are available, but hospitals run at full capacity. Strategic patients are usually much younger than average. From a policy point of view, our results show that long waits may discourage “genuine” patients rather than strategic ones. It is necessary to develop a system to improve access to patients mainly requiring specialist care, along with enhancing the management of diagnostic examinations through primary care.


Clinical pathway Emergency department General practitioner Inappropriate emergency admission Specialist care Strategic patient behavior 

JEL Classification

I11 I12 I18 



The authors would like to thank ALISA (Azienda Sanitaria Regione Liguria) for their invaluable cooperation in providing the data. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for thier comments, which greatly improved the paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Cremonesi, P., di Bella, E., Montefiori, M., Persico, L.: The robustness and effectiveness of the triage system at times of overcrowding and the extra costs due to inappropriate use of emergency departments. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 13(5), 507–514 (2015)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vedovetto, A., Soriani, N., Merlo, E., Gregori, D.: The Burden of inappropriate emergency department pediatric visits: why Italy needs an urgent reform. Heal. Serv. Res. 49(4), 1290–1305 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    David, G., Gunnarsson, C., Saynisch, P.A., Chawla, R., Nigam, S.: Do patient-centered medical homes reduce emergency department visits? Heal. Serv. Res. 50(2), 418–439 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Montefiori, M., di Bella, E., Leporatti, L., Petralia, P.: Robustness and effectiveness of the triage system in the pediatric context. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 15(6), 795–803 (2017)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McWilliams, A., Tapp, H., Barker, J., Dulin, M.: Cost analysis of the use of emergency departments for primary care service in Charlotte. North Carolina. North Carolina Med. J. 72(4), 265–271 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Billings, J., Parikh, N., Mijanovich, T.: Emergency department use in New York City: a substitute for primary care? Issue Brief (Commonw. Fund.) 433, 1–5 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billings, J., Parikh, N., Mijanovich, T.: Emergency room use: the New York Story. Issue Brief (Commonw. Fund.) 434, 1–11 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishman, J., McLafferty, S., Galanter, W.: Does spatial access to primary care affect emergency department utilization for nonemergent conditions? Health Serv. Res. 53(1), 489–508 (2018)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levaggi, R., Montefiori, M.: Definition of a prospective payment system to reimburse emergency departments. BMC Health Serv. Res. 13, 409 (2013). CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodacre, S., Webster, A.: Who waits longest in the emergency department and who leaves without being seen? Emerg. Med. J. 22(2), 93–96 (2005)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Botelho, A., Dias, I.C., Fernandes, T., et al.: Overestimation of health urgency as a cause for emergency services inappropriate use: Insights from an exploratory economics experiment in Portugal. Health Soc Care Community 27, 1031–1041 (2019). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coster, J.E., Turner, J.K., Bradbury, D., Cantrell, A.: Why do people choose emergency and urgent care services? A rapid review utilizing a systematic literature search and narrative synthesis. Acad. Emerg. Med. 24(9), 1137–1149 (2017)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, D.R., Brennan, J.J., Kreshak, A.A., Castillo, E.M., Vilke, G.M.: Patients who leave the emergency department without being seen and their follow-up behavior: a retrospective descriptive analysis. J. Emerg. Med. 57(1), 106–113 (2019)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sivey, P.: Should I stay or should I go? Hospital emergency department waiting times and demand. Health Econ. 27(3), e30–e42 (2017)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    “Atto di intesa tra Stato e Regioni di approvazione delle Linee Guida sul sistema di emergenza sanitaria in applicazione del decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 27 marzo 1992. (GU Serie Generale n.114 del 17-05-1996),” Gazz. Uff., 114 del 17 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen, L., Cummings, J., Hockenberry, J.: Urgent care centers and the demand for non-emergent emergency department visits (January 2019). NBER Working Paper No. w25428. Available at SSRN:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  2. 2.DIEC - Department of Economics and Business StudiesUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations