ArticleIrish journal of medical science2013
Patient satisfaction following emergency admission via a surgical assessment unit and an emergency department.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Satisfaction in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Magnitude of non-operative surgical emergency admissions; service implications for surgical and radiological practice.Irish journal of medical science · 2017Article
- The impact of regional reconfiguration on the management of appendicitis.Irish journal of medical science · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAcute surgical patients are admitted to our regional hospital through the emergency department (ED) and through a new surgical assessment unit (SAU). The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of the two units in seeing and assessing acute surgical patients, as well as patients' satisfaction with their experiences in both units.
methodsA patient satisfaction scoring questionnaire was distributed to 115 consecutive surgical patients attending the SAU and ED over an 8-week period. Patients' impressions of waiting times, pain management and interactions with staff were detailed. The actual times taken for assessment, admission and discharge were recorded and compared with those perceived by the patients.
resultsPatients' perceptions of care were very high within both the ED and the SAU, with 95 % of SAU patients reporting their care as excellent or very good compared with 86 % of ED patients (p = 0.014). Patients were assessed considerably faster in the SAU compared with the ED, with an average wait from registration to admission or discharge totalling 5 h in the SAU compared with 12 h in the ED.
conclusionThe SAU provides an effective and efficient mode of assessment of acute surgical patients. While patients were discharged faster from the SAU than the ED, patients rated both units highly in terms of satisfaction with the service provided.
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.