{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020833333333333332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.686390532544379, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Highlights from this issue

Ah, you’re back again then... If you work in the emergency services you will be aware of frequent users. These are an interesting and diverse group of patients who can account for significant impacts on clinical services. EMJ has published a number of papers on the management of such patients and there is increasingly evidence that we can manage them better, but what are they really like? What’s the evidence for the attendance reasons behind this often maligned group who we see (by definition) frequently? Vinton et al have looked at US databases to characterize and compare infrequent, frequent and super-frequent users (a new term to me), and have found them to be a disadvantaged and vulnerable population with significant disease. This is a reminder to me that our EDs are a safety net for a vulnerable population and that there is much potential to improve the care for these patients through targeted care and management.