Frequent Users of Emergency Department (FUEDs)DAUMNCT07635680
Evaluation of a Case-management Program for Frequent Emergency Department Users
A study testing Case-management program in people with Frequent Users of Emergency Department (FUEDs), run by Central Hospital, Nancy, France at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
The DAUM case-management program for frequent users (FUs) of emergency department was developed to improve FUs identification and management. FUs were eligible if they had four ED visits or more in the previous year, and attended the ED between November, 2022 and October, 2023. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Frequent Users of Emergency Department (FUEDs)
- What is being tested?
- Case-management program
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 153 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 7 Nov 2022to 31 Oct 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- adults
- who visited the ED of Nancy University Hospital between November 7th, 2022, and October 6th, 2023
- with at least four ED visits during the preceding year
- residing in Nancy or the surrounding urban areas
Who cannot join
- homeless patients
- patient refusal to participate
- patient's GP refusal to participate
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The DAUM Case-management Program for Frequent Users of the Nancy University Hospital Emergency Department: Evaluation Protocol
The DAUM case-management program for frequent users (FUs) of emergency department was developed to improve FUs identification and management. FUs were eligible if they had four ED visits or more in the previous year, and attended the ED between November, 2022 and October, 2023. Patients were identified in the ED and addressed to the territorial support platform. A personalized health coordination plan which included a care plan (care objectives) and a support plan (social objectives) was co-constructed by the support platform, the patient, their caregiver(s), and their GP. Follow-up assessments at three to six months and at one year evaluated whether individual objectives were achieved. The primary outcomes were participants' mean number of ED visits during their year of participation in the program compared to the previous year, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the cost per ED visit avoided. Secondary outcomes included reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance indicators.
- Being tested
- Case-management program
- Keywords
- frequent users, emergency department, case-management program, RE-AIM, cost-effectiveness
- Medical subject headings
- Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Case-management programBehavioural
FUs patients were identified by the admission nurse through an alert generated by the ED information system. The ED physician explained the DAUM program to the patient and notified the Territorial Support Platform (TSP). The TSP team contacted the patient and his/her GP to present the DAUM program, obtain their agreement to participate and collect additional information.
Once the patient included in the DAUM program, a Personalized Health Coordination Plan (PHCP) was co-constructed by the TSP team, in collaboration with the patient, hi/her GP, and other caregiver(s). The PHCP is divided into a care plan (with care objectives) and a support plan (with social obectives). Once the objectives of the care and support plans were identified for a patient, specific actions and timeframes were established for each objective. Follow-up assessments were conducted at three to six months from the inclusion and at one year.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Case-management program | Experimental | Patients included in the case-management program Receives: Behavioral: Case-management program |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Effectiveness
Mean number of ED visits among included patients
Measured: Before-after comparison between the mean number of ED visits during the year of program participation and the mean number of ED visits in the preceding year
Cost-effectiveness
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in cost per ED visit avoided
Measured: One year
Secondary outcomes (25)
Indicator Reach 1 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program among eligible patients
[number of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program / number of eligible patients] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Reach 2 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the program among patients to whom the program was proposed
[number of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program / number of patients to whom the DAUM program was proposed] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Reach 3 - Percentage of patients who effectively participated in the program
[number of patients who effectively participated in the DAUM program (PHCP validated) / number of included patients] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Adoption 1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians
[number of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians / number of potentially eligible patients (i.e., patients identified as FU who visited the ED during the study period)] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Adoption 2 - Percentage of patients who had been informed about the program during their ED visit
[number of patients who had been informed about the DAUM program during their ED visit / number of patients to whom the DAUM program was proposed by the TSP] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians within three days of their ED visit
[number of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians within three days of their ED visit / number of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 2 - Percentage of patients whose GP was contacted within 48 hours of the notification by an ED physician
[number of patients whose GP was contacted within 48 hours of the notification by an ED physician / number of eligible patients] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 3 - Percentage of patients contacted by the TSP team within seven days of the notification by an ED physician
[number of patients contacted by the TSP team within seven days of the notification by an ED physician / number of patients to whom the DAUM program was proposed] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 4 - Percentage of patients for whom a PHCP was validated within a month of the first contact between the TSP team and the patient
[number of patients for whom a PHCP was validated within a month of the first contact (between the TSP team and the patient) / number of patients who had a PHCP] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 5 - Percentage of patients who benefited from the first actions of the PHCP within two weeks of the PHCP validation
[number of patients who benefited from the first actions of the PHCP within two weeks of the PHCP validation / number of patients who had a PHCP validated] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 6 - Percentage of patients with a 3- to 6-month assessment
[number of patients with a 3-to 6-month assessment / number of patients who had a PHCP validated] x 100
Measured: 3 and 6 months
Indicator Implementation 7 - Percentage of patients with a 1-year assessment
[number of patients with a 1-year assessment / number of patients not dead or lost to follow-up during the year] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Implementation 8 - Percentage of patients for whom all the PHCP actions were implemented as planned at the 1-year assessment
[number of patients for whom all the PHCP actions were implemented as planned at the 1-year assessment / number of patients followed-up at 1 year] x 100
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance R1 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program among eligible patients
[number of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program / number of eligible patients] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance R2 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the program among patients to whom the program was proposed
[number of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program / number of patients to whom the DAUM program was proposed] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance R3 - Percentage of patients who effectively participated in the program
[number of patients who effectively participated in the DAUM program (PHCP validated) / number of included patients] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance A1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians
[number of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians / number of potentially eligible patients (i.e., patients identified as FU who visited the ED during the study period)] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance A2 - Percentage of patients who had been informed about the program during their ED visit
[number of patients who had been informed about the DAUM program during their ED visit / number of patients to whom the DAUM program was proposed by the TSP] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians within three days of their ED visit
[number of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians within three days of their ED visit / number of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I2 - Percentage of patients whose GP was contacted within 48 hours of the notification by an ED physician
[number of patients whose GP was contacted within 48 hours of the notification by an ED physician / number of eligible patients] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I3 - Percentage of patients contacted by the TSP team within seven days of the notification by an ED physician
[number of patients contacted by the TSP team within seven days of the notification by an ED physician / number of patients to whom the DAUM program was proposed] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I4 - Percentage of patients for whom a PHCP was validated within a month of the first contact between the TSP team and the patient
[number of patients for whom a PHCP was validated within a month of the first contact (between the TSP team and the patient) / number of patients who had a PHCP] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I5 - Percentage of patients who benefited from the first actions of the PHCP within two weeks of the PHCP validation
[number of patients who benefited from the first actions of the PHCP within two weeks of the PHCP validation / number of patients who had a PHCP validated] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I6 - Percentage of patients with a 3- to 6-month assessment
[number of patients with a 3-to 6-month assessment / number of patients who had a PHCP validated] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Indicator Maintenance I7 - Percentage of patients with a 1-year assessment
[number of patients with a 1-year assessment / number of patients not dead or lost to follow-up during the year] x 100, calculated each month
Measured: One year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Jun 2026
- Study start7 Nov 2022
- Primary completion31 Oct 2024
- Study completion31 Oct 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Frequent Users of Emergency Department (FUEDs)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Central Hospital, Nancy, FranceThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 153 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Central Hospital, Nancy, France
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- agence régionale de santé Grand Est, Dispositif d'appui à la coordination de Meurthe-et-Moselle
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, CHOUIHED Tahar, Central Hospital, Nancy, France
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07635680
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2022_PI_095
- Acronym
- DAUM
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 19 May 2026
- Last updated
- 9 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Gabet M, Armoon B, Meng X, Fleury MJ. Effectiveness of emergency department based interventions for frequent users with mental health issues: A systematic review. Am J Emerg Med. 2023 Dec;74:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.09.008. Epub 2023 Sep 9.
PubMed 37717467Reinhart L, Dechartres A, Beaune S, Bonnet-Zamponi D, Chauvin A, Yordanov Y. Clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with frequent use of emergency services by persons of advanced age in Paris: a nested case-control study. Emergencias. 2025 Feb;37(1):7-14. doi: 10.55633/s3me/114.2024. English, Spanish.
PubMed 39898941Calastri C, Buckell J, Crastes Dit Sourd R. Avoidable visits to UK emergency departments from the patient perspective: A recursive bivariate probit approach. Health Policy. 2025 Apr;154:105265. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105265. Epub 2025 Feb 12.
PubMed 39987851Sartini M, Carbone A, Demartini A, Giribone L, Oliva M, Spagnolo AM, Cremonesi P, Canale F, Cristina ML. Overcrowding in Emergency Department: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions-A Narrative Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Aug 25;10(9):1625. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10091625.
PubMed 36141237Darraj A, Hudays A, Hazazi A, Hobani A, Alghamdi A. The Association between Emergency Department Overcrowding and Delay in Treatment: A Systematic Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jan 29;11(3):385. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11030385.
PubMed 36766963Ohaiba MM, Anamazobi EG, Okobi OE, Aguda K, Chukwu VU. Trends and Patterns in Emergency Department Visits: A Comprehensive Analysis of Adult Data From the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Database. Cureus. 2024 Aug 3;16(8):e66059. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66059. eCollection 2024 Aug.
PubMed 39229409
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The DAUM Case-management Program for Frequent Users of the Nancy University Hospital Emergency Department: Evaluation Protocol
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07635680
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DAUM / 2022_PI_095
- Keywords
- frequent users, emergency department, case-management program, RE-AIM, cost-effectiveness
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 153 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Central Hospital, Nancy, FranceUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- agence régionale de santé Grand Est, Dispositif d'appui à la coordination de Meurthe-et-Moselle
- Study start
- 7 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The DAUM case-management program for frequent users (FUs) of emergency department was developed to improve FUs identification and management. FUs were eligible if they had four ED visits or more in the previous year, and attended the ED between November, 2022 and October, 2023. Patients were identified in the ED and addressed to the territorial support platform. A personalized health coordination plan which included a care plan (care objectives) and a support plan (social objectives) was co-constructed by the support platform, the patient, their caregiver(s), and their GP. Follow-up assessments at three to six months and at one year evaluated whether individual objectives were achieved. The primary outcomes were participants' mean number of ED visits during their year of participation in the program compared to the previous year, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the cost per ED visit avoided. Secondary outcomes included reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance indicators.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Case-management program | Experimental | Behavioral: Case-management programPatients included in the case-management program |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- adults
- who visited the ED of Nancy University Hospital between November 7th, 2022, and October 6th, 2023
- with at least four ED visits during the preceding year
- residing in Nancy or the surrounding urban areas
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- homeless patients
- patient refusal to participate
- patient's GP refusal to participate
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Case-management programFUs patients were identified by the admission nurse through an alert generated by the ED information system. The ED physician explained the DAUM program to the patient and notified the Territorial Support Platform (TSP). The TSP team contacted the patient and his/her GP to present the DAUM program, obtain their agreement to participate and collect additional information. Once the patient included in the DAUM program, a Personalized Health Coordination Plan (PHCP) was co-constructed by the TSP team, in collaboration with the patient, hi/her GP, and other caregiver(s). The PHCP is divided into a care plan (with care objectives) and a support plan (with social obectives). Once the objectives of the care and support plans were identified for a patient, specific actions and timeframes were established for each objective. Follow-up assessments were conducted at three to six months from the inclusion and at one year. | Behavioural | Case-management program |
Primary outcome
Effectiveness
Time frame: Before-after comparison between the mean number of ED visits during the year of program participation and the mean number of ED visits in the preceding year
Mean number of ED visits among included patients
Cost-effectiveness
Time frame: One year
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in cost per ED visit avoided
25 secondary outcomes
Indicator Reach 1 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program among eligible patients
Time frame: One year
Indicator Reach 2 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the program among patients to whom the program was proposed
Time frame: One year
Indicator Reach 3 - Percentage of patients who effectively participated in the program
Time frame: One year
Indicator Adoption 1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians
Time frame: One year
Indicator Adoption 2 - Percentage of patients who had been informed about the program during their ED visit
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians within three days of their ED visit
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 2 - Percentage of patients whose GP was contacted within 48 hours of the notification by an ED physician
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 3 - Percentage of patients contacted by the TSP team within seven days of the notification by an ED physician
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 4 - Percentage of patients for whom a PHCP was validated within a month of the first contact between the TSP team and the patient
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 5 - Percentage of patients who benefited from the first actions of the PHCP within two weeks of the PHCP validation
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 6 - Percentage of patients with a 3- to 6-month assessment
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Indicator Implementation 7 - Percentage of patients with a 1-year assessment
Time frame: One year
Indicator Implementation 8 - Percentage of patients for whom all the PHCP actions were implemented as planned at the 1-year assessment
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance R1 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the DAUM program among eligible patients
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance R2 - Percentage of patients who consented to participate in the program among patients to whom the program was proposed
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance R3 - Percentage of patients who effectively participated in the program
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance A1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance A2 - Percentage of patients who had been informed about the program during their ED visit
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I1 - Percentage of patients notified to the TSP by ED physicians within three days of their ED visit
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I2 - Percentage of patients whose GP was contacted within 48 hours of the notification by an ED physician
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I3 - Percentage of patients contacted by the TSP team within seven days of the notification by an ED physician
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I4 - Percentage of patients for whom a PHCP was validated within a month of the first contact between the TSP team and the patient
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I5 - Percentage of patients who benefited from the first actions of the PHCP within two weeks of the PHCP validation
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I6 - Percentage of patients with a 3- to 6-month assessment
Time frame: One year
Indicator Maintenance I7 - Percentage of patients with a 1-year assessment
Time frame: One year
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 37717467Gabet M, Armoon B, Meng X, Fleury MJ. Effectiveness of emergency department based interventions for frequent users with mental health issues: A systematic review. Am J Emerg Med. 2023 Dec;74:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.09.008. Epub 2023 Sep 9.
- Background: PubMed 39898941Reinhart L, Dechartres A, Beaune S, Bonnet-Zamponi D, Chauvin A, Yordanov Y. Clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with frequent use of emergency services by persons of advanced age in Paris: a nested case-control study. Emergencias. 2025 Feb;37(1):7-14. doi: 10.55633/s3me/114.2024. English, Spanish.
- Background: PubMed 39987851Calastri C, Buckell J, Crastes Dit Sourd R. Avoidable visits to UK emergency departments from the patient perspective: A recursive bivariate probit approach. Health Policy. 2025 Apr;154:105265. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105265. Epub 2025 Feb 12.
- Background: PubMed 36141237Sartini M, Carbone A, Demartini A, Giribone L, Oliva M, Spagnolo AM, Cremonesi P, Canale F, Cristina ML. Overcrowding in Emergency Department: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions-A Narrative Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Aug 25;10(9):1625. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10091625.
- Background: PubMed 36766963Darraj A, Hudays A, Hazazi A, Hobani A, Alghamdi A. The Association between Emergency Department Overcrowding and Delay in Treatment: A Systematic Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jan 29;11(3):385. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11030385.
- Background: PubMed 39229409Ohaiba MM, Anamazobi EG, Okobi OE, Aguda K, Chukwu VU. Trends and Patterns in Emergency Department Visits: A Comprehensive Analysis of Adult Data From the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Database. Cureus. 2024 Aug 3;16(8):e66059. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66059. eCollection 2024 Aug.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Case-management program in people with Frequent Users of Emergency Department (FUEDs), run by Central Hospital, Nancy, France at 1 site in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Effectiveness (time frame: Before-after comparison between the mean number of ED visits during the year of program participation and the mean number of ED visits in the preceding year). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07635680, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Jun 2026.