Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23917893›Full record

Observational studyDer Anaesthesist2013

[Validity of admission diagnoses as process-driving criteria : influence on length of stay and consultation rate in emergency departments].

M Bernhard, C Raatz, P Zahn, A Merker, A Gries

Abstract readEnglish AbstractObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Der Anaesthesist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Routine Data from Emergency Departments: Varying Documentation Standards, Billing Modalities and Data Custodians at an Identical Unit of Care].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M BernhardZentrale Notaufnahme/Notaufnahmestation, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Liebigstr. 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. Michael.Bernhard@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
C Raatz
P Zahn
A Merker
A Gries

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care physicians and specialists often refer patients to the emergency department with a specific diagnosis and request for admission. Such an external diagnosis frequently influences the initial evaluation in the emergency department. The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of such external diagnoses and to assess the consequences of incorrect diagnoses on length of stay and number of specialty consultations in the emergency department. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis was a prospective observational study over the course of 3 months in the emergency department of a tertiary care center. External admission diagnoses made by primary care physicians and specialists were categorized as "accurate", "partially accurate" and "inaccurate". A special analysis of the external admission diagnosed was performed for patients admitted directly to an intermediary care unit and intensive care unit or patients who were transferred directly from the emergency department to the operating room.

resultsData for 784 patients were analyzed. Patients were on average 63.1 ± 19.5 years old (minimum-maximum 18-97 years, median 68 years) and 54 % were male. After emergency department evaluation and treatment 57.8 % of external diagnoses were categorized as accurate, 23.6 % as partially accurate and 18.6 % as inaccurate. Patients with partially accurate and inaccurate diagnoses had a 3 and 6.5 times higher rate of specialty consultations in the emergency department, respectively, when compared with patients with an accurate diagnosis (number of specialty consultations n = 0: 77.3 % vs. 54.1 % vs. 92.9 %, p < 0.05; n = 1: 20.0 % vs. 40.4 % vs. 6.2 %, p < 0.05; n = 2: 2.7 % vs. 5.5 % vs. 0.9 %, p < 0.05, respectively. Patients with an accurate diagnosis had a shorter total length of stay than patients with a partially accurate or inaccurate diagnosis [mean ± SD (min-max; median): 192 ± 108 min (10-707 min; 181 min) vs. 246 ± 126 min (27-1,026 min; 214 min) vs. 258 ± 138 min (22-700 min; 232 min), p < 0.001], respectively. Out of 85 patients admitted directly to an intermediary care unit, intensive care unit and patients who were transferred directly from the emergency department to the operating room the diagnosis was accurate, partially accurate and inaccurate in 56.5 %, 24.7 % and 18.8 %, respectively.

conclusionsAdmission diagnoses made by primary care physicians and specialists who subsequently refer patients to the emergency department are subject to certain inaccuracies. Inaccurate admission diagnoses are associated with an increased length of stay and a considerably higher rate of specialty consultation in the emergency department. Standardized operating procedures, treatment algorithms and triage systems are important to identify such incorrect diagnoses so that these patients can undergo appropriate diagnostic investigation and treatment.

Indexed as

DiagnosisAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsCritical CareDiagnostic ErrorsEmergency Medical ServicesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

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.