Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21935398›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Use of observation care in US emergency departments, 2001 to 2008.

Arjun K Venkatesh, Benjamin P Geisler, Jennifer J Gibson Chambers, Christopher W Baugh, J Stephen Bohan, Jeremiah D Schuur

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. 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 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Condition-Specific Protocols Used in the Emergency Department Observation Unit: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  2. Validation of a 0/2-Hour Point-Of-Care High Sensitivity Troponin Algorithm: A Multisite US Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Cost-effectiveness of early noninvasive cardiac testing for suspected acute coronary syndrome.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Arjun K VenkateshBrigham and Women's Hospital-Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Affiliated Emergency Medicine Residency, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. akvenkatesh@partners.org
Benjamin P Geisler
Jennifer J Gibson Chambers
Christopher W Baugh
J Stephen Bohan
Jeremiah D Schuur

Funding

HARVARD CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTER (UL1)UL1RR025758 · NCRR · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2008 to 2011
$91.4M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR 025758NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservation care is a core component of emergency care delivery, yet, the prevalence of emergency department (ED) observation units (OUs) and use of observation care after ED visits is unknown. Our objective was to describe the 1) prevalence of OUs in United States (US) hospitals, 2) clinical conditions most frequently evaluated with observation, and 3) patient and hospital characteristics associated with use of observation.

methodsRetrospective analysis of the proportion of hospitals with dedicated OUs and patient disposition after ED visit (discharge, inpatient admission or observation evaluation) using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2001 to 2008. NHAMCS is an annual, national probability sample of ED visits to US hospitals conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Logistic regression was used to assess hospital-level predictors of OU presence and polytomous logistic regression was used for patient-level predictors of visit disposition, each adjusted for multi-level sampling data. OU analysis was limited to 2007-2008.

resultsIn 2007-2008, 34.1% of all EDs had a dedicated OU, of which 56.1% were under ED administrative control (EDOU). Between 2001 and 2008, ED visits resulting in a disposition to observation increased from 642,000 (0.60% of ED visits) to 2,318,000 (1.87%, p<.05). Chest pain was the most common reason for ED visit resulting in observation and the most common observation discharge diagnosis (19.1% and 17.1% of observation evaluations, respectively). In hospital-level adjusted analysis, hospital ownership status (non-profit or government), non-teaching status, and longer ED length of visit (>3.6 h) were predictive of OU presence. After patient-level adjustment, EDOU presence was associated with increased disposition to observation (OR 2.19).

conclusionsOne-third of US hospitals have dedicated OUs and observation care is increasingly used for a range of clinical conditions. Further research is warranted to understand the quality, cost and efficiency of observation care.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultEmergency Service, HospitalHumansRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21935398
PMCPMC3173457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.