Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12642530›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2003

Emergency nurse practitioners: a three part study in clinical and cost effectiveness.

M Sakr, R Kendall, J Angus, A Sanders, J Nicholl, J Wardrope, A Saunders

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    Saunders A [corrected to Sanders A]
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M SakrAccident and Emergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK.
R Kendall
J Angus
A Sanders
J Nicholl
J Wardrope
A Saunders
Northern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo compare the clinical effectiveness and costs of minor injury services provided by nurse practitioners with minor injury care provided by an accident and emergency (A&E) department.

methodsA three part prospective study in a city where an A&E department was closing and being replaced by a nurse led minor injury unit (MIU). The first part of the study took a sample of patients attending the A&E department. The second part of the study was a sample of patients from a nurse led MIU that had replaced the A&E department. In each of these samples the clinical effectiveness was judged by comparing the "gold standard" of a research assessment with the clinical assessment. Primary outcome measures were the number of errors in clinical assessment, treatment, and disposal. The third part of the study used routine data whose collection had been prospectively configured to assess the costs and cost consequences of both models of care.

resultsThe minor injury unit produced a safe service where the total package of care was equal to or in some cases better than the A&E care. Significant process errors were made in 191 of 1447 (13.2%) patients treated by medical staff in the A&E department and 126 of 1313 (9.6%) of patients treated by nurse practitioners in the MIU. Very significant errors were rare (one error). Waiting times were much better at the MIU (mean MIU 19 minutes, A&E department 56.4 minutes). The revenue costs were greater in the MIU (MIU pound 41.1, A&E department pound 40.01) and there was a great difference in the rates of follow up and with the nurses referring 47% of patients for follow up and the A&E department referring only 27%. Thus the costs and cost consequences were greater for MIU care compared with A&E care (MIU pound 12.7 per minor injury case, A&E department pound 9.66 per minor injury case).

conclusionA nurse practitioner minor injury service can provide a safe and effective service for the treatment of minor injury. However, the costs of such a service are greater and there seems to be an increased use of outpatient services.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisEmergency NursingEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHospital CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse PractitionersProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID12642530
PMCPMC1726060
OpenAlexW2112817574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.