Abstract:

Background:

In a preliminary study, we identified that visiting an emergency department (ED) and calling a physician were substitute options if the poison control center (PCC) were not available. The objective of this study was to review multiple years of data to determine what callers to PCCs would do in a poison-related emergency if a PCC was not available, and whether or not health insurance is a factor that influences that decision.

Methods:

This was a retrospective analysis of a PCCs customer satisfaction survey (CSS) responses between 2015 to 2018 to determine the relationship between 2 survey questions.: 1) “If the poison center was not available, what would you do first in solving poison-related emergencies?” and 2) “Does the person you called about have health insurance? If yes, which kind is it?” The alternative actions are: call 911, call/visit ED, call/visit urgent care, call/visit physician, search online, and other. The insurance types are separated into four categories: government (state/federal), commercial, self-pay, and other/unknown/refused. The data were cross-tabulated for analysis.

Results:

A total of 3852 surveys were completed between 2015 to 2018. The majority of responders had commercial insurance (2500; 64.9%), followed by government (959; 24.9%). The top three most common alternative actions were call/visit physician (1030; 26.74%) followed by call/visit ED (963; 25%) and call 911 (788; 20.26%). For callers with government insurance, the most common alternative action response was call/visit ED (307; 32.01%); the most common response for callers with commercial insurance was call/visit physician (752; 30.08%); for self-pay, the most common response was visit ED (57; 35.19%); and for other/unknown/refused callers, the most common response was visit ED (55; 23.81%).

Conclusion:

If the PCC is not available, most callers will seek care at a healthcare facility with the two most common actions call/visit ED and call/visit physician depending on the insurance type.