Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999
Randomized controlled trial of general practitioner versus usual medical care in a suburban accident and emergency department using an informal triage system.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary care professionals providing non-urgent care in hospital emergency departments.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Primary care professionals providing non-urgent care in hospital emergency departments.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Emergency department clinical leads' experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study.BMC emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Are more experienced clinicians better able to tolerate uncertainty and manage risks? A vignette study of doctors in three NHS emergency departments in England.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.BMJ open · 2019Review
- General practitioners providing non-urgent care in emergency department: a natural experiment.BMJ open · 2018Observational
- A & E services in Ireland: the potential role of general practice in accident and emergency services.Irish journal of medical scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We determined if care provided by general practitioners (GPs) to non-emergency patients, in a suburban accident and emergency (A&E) department using an informal triage system, differs significantly from care provided by usual A&E staff. One thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight patients participated. By comparison with usual A&E staff, GPs prescribed significantly more often (percentage relative difference [% RD] = 12 [95% confidence interval = 1-23]) and referred more patients to hospital (% RD = 21 [95% CI = 9-33]). This is the first study to report that sessional GPs working in an A&E department utilize similar or more resources than usual A&E staff. It emphasizes the need for the continued audit of initiatives that have been introduced into new settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10622016PMC1313317W106179165What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.