首页> 外文期刊>The California Journal of Emergency Medicine >Prevalence of Homelessness in the Emergency Department Setting
【24h】

Prevalence of Homelessness in the Emergency Department Setting

机译:急诊科环境中无家可归的患病率

获取原文
       

摘要

Background/Objective: To determine the prevalence of homelessness or at-risk for homelessness in the ED setting. Methods: Using a 5 question screening tool derived from teh US department of Housing and Urband Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Beterans Administration (VA) definition for homelessness, we surveyed all patients meeting inclusion criteria on scheudled shifts in one of three EDs in Northeastern Pennsylvania Two survey periods were selected to represent seasonal variations. Results: 4395 subjects were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 50.8 (SD 20.5) and 2,557(58.2%) were women. The mean age of those who screened positive for homelessness or at-risk for homelessness was 43.1 (SD16.6). Overall, 136 (3.1%) participants screened positive for at-risk for homelessness and 309 (7.0%) screened positive for homelessness. 103 (9.8%) subjects screened positive for homelessness or at-risk for homelessness on weekends and 312 (10.3%) on weekedays (p=-.64). The proportion of those screening positive for homelessness or at-risk for homelessness varied by site: 145 (7.5%) at hte trauma cetner, 151 (9.1%) at the suburban site and 149 (18.7%) at the center city site, p<0.001. There was no statistical significance to the difference between the trauma center and the suburban site (p=.088), but there was statistical significance between both the suburban and the trauma cneter when compared to the center city site (both p<0.0001). The proportion of those screening positive for homelessness in the summer months (156,7.5%) was similar to those in the winter months (153, 6.6%), p=-.23, but it did favor summer months if those who were at-risk for homelessness were included (230, 11.1%, summer versus 215, 9.2% winter; p=0.045). Conclusions: In our study, the overall prevalence of homelessness or at-risk for homelessness was 10.1%. This prevalence did not seem to vary between weekdays and weekends. Additionally summer months had a prevalence that was was concerning as winter months. The prevalence does, however, seem to vary by institutional characteristics even in the same geographic region. Understanding the patterns of prevalence of homelessness is a step toward considering possible interventions to assist this vulnerable population
机译:背景/目的:确定ED设置中无家可归的普遍性或无家可归的风险。方法:使用来自美国住房和城市发展部(HUD),卫生与公共服务部(HHS)和Beterans Administration(VA)关于无家可归的定义的5个问题筛查工具,我们调查了所有符合轮换入选标准的患者在宾夕法尼亚州东北部的三个ED之一中,选择了两个调查期来代表季节变化。结果:4395名受试者被纳入分析。参与者的平均年龄为50.8(SD 20.5),其中女性为2557(58.2%)。那些无家可归或处于无家可归危险中的人的平均年龄为43.1(SD16.6)。总体而言,有136名(3.1%)的参与者对无家可归的高风险进行了筛查,而有309名(7.0%)的无家可归的对因为阳性。周末有103(9.8%)个受试者的无家可归者筛查呈阳性,无家可归的风险呈阳性,而每周工作日的筛查者为312个(10.3%)(p =-。64)。筛查无家可归者或无家可归者呈阳性的人的比例因地点而异:在外伤科特纳地区为145(7.5%),在郊区为151(9.1%),在中心城市为149(18.7%),p <0.001。创伤中心与郊区之间的差异无统计学意义(p = .088),但与中心城区相比,郊区与创伤中心之间均无统计学意义(均p <0.0001)。在夏季,无家可归者筛查阳性的比例(156,7.5%)与冬季月份相同(153,6.6%),p =-。23,但如果在-包括无家可归的风险(夏季为230,11.1%,冬季为215,9.2%; p = 0.045)。结论:在我们的研究中,无家可归或无家可归风险的总体患病率为10.1%。在工作日和周末之间,这种患病率似乎没有变化。另外,夏季的流行与冬季有关。但是,即使在同一地理区域,患病率也确实因机构特征而异。了解无家可归者的流行方式是考虑采取可能的干预措施来帮助这一脆弱人群的一步

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号