ArticleAtencion primaria2008
[An approach to acute diseases using a nursing practice guide].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
- [Emergency care in Primary Care: A crossed perspective between professionals and citizens. DEMAGUT Study].Atencion primaria · 2026Article
- How do Patients and Managers Value Gold Standard Elements in Primary Health Care.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- [Implementation of nurse demand managment in primary health care service providers in Catalonia].Atencion primaria · 2017Article
- [Evaluation of Nurse Demand Management in Primary Care].Atencion primaria · 2016Article
- [Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior: Which factors influence on doing physical exercise?].Atencion primaria · 2015Observational
- [Primary care consultations: are they all by the doctor?].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
- [Health care pressure and redistribution of tasks: an opportunity to improve primary care].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the health results of patients who make spontaneous visits when attended by nurses in a primary health care team and by applying a nursing practice guide.
designCross-sectional, descriptive study.
settingPrimary health care team from the Barcelona metropolitan area, Spain.
participantsPatients who request a spontaneous visit for the same day in the primary health care centre (PHC).
interventionA nursing practice guide was prepared in which health problems were classified into 3 groups according to seriousness and possibility of being resolved by the nursing staff: a) group 1, problems where the protocols allowed that the nurse could finalise the process; b) group 2, problems that might require emergency action; and c) group 3, problems that required an assessment of the level of seriousness. When the patient arrived at the PHC requesting an urgent visit, and the problem fell into group 1 it was dealt with by a nurse.
resultsThere were 202 patients with health problems included in group 1.The mean age was 36.3 years (SD, 18.6 years).The most consulted health problems were musculo-skeletal (32.7%), followed by skin (22.3%), and the digestive system (22.3%). Of those, 63.9% of the problems were completely resolved and only 5.9% required visits by the out of hours doctor. DISCUSSION: The nursing practice guide meant that the nurse became the entrance door to the primary care system, with a high possibility of resolving health problems.
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.