ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2003
A seven year experience of medical emergencies in the assessment unit.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hospital based alternatives to acute paediatric admission: a systematic review.Archives of disease in childhood · 2005Pooled it
- Changing characteristics of hospital admissions but not the children admitted-a whole population study between 2000 and 2013.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo analyse retrospectively all referrals to the assessment unit during a seven year period, to determine their sources and destination.
methodsAll referrals over the seven year period were analysed. Parental satisfaction was determined using a questionnaire in some of the patients. The disease pattern and the investigations performed were determined. The community nurses' working hours and type of work done were analysed. RESULTS AND
conclusionsA total of 43 496 children were seen in the unit. Over 65% of the patients were referred by the general practitioners; 13 517 (34.2%) of those referred to the unit were discharged directly from the unit. Respiratory disorders and gastrointestinal problems were commonly seen. The children discharged from the unit did not have significantly more tests done on them. Most of the parents whose children were discharged from the unit were happy to be managed at home. The community nurses attended many children who needed intravenous therapy and advice on fluid rehydration. Community nurses reduce admission to the wards by working with other members in the assessment unit. This in turn provides a single point of entry and bridges the gap between primary and secondary care. We suggest recommendations on setting up such a unit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.