Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24319279›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Suitability of emergency department attenders to be assessed in primary care: survey of general practitioner agreement in a random sample of triage records analysed in a service evaluation project.

Mary I W Thompson, Daniel Lasserson, Lloyd McCann, Matthew Thompson, Carl Heneghan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Access to general practice and visits to accident and emergency departments in England: cross-sectional analysis of a national patient survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Article
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.

Mary I W ThompsonDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Daniel Lasserson
Lloyd McCann
Matthew Thompson
Carl Heneghan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the proportion of emergency department (ED) attendances that would be suitable for primary care and the inter-rater reliability of general practitioner (GP) assessment of primary care suitability. DESIGN OF STUDY: Survey of GPs' agreement of suitability for primary care on a random anonymised sample of all ED patients attending over a 1-month period.

settingED of a UK Hospital serving a population of 600 000.

methodFour GPs independently used data extracted from clinical notes to rate the appropriateness for management in primary care as well as need for investigations, specialist review or admission. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ.

resultsThe mean percentage of patients that GPs considered suitable for primary care management was 43% (range 38-47%). The κ for agreement was 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64) and 0.47(95% CI 0.38 to 0.59). In patients deemed not suitable for primary care, GPs were more likely to determine the need for specialist review (relative risks (RR)=3.5, 95% CI 3.0 to 4.2, p<0.001) and admission (RR=3.9, 95% CI 3.2 to 4.7, p<0.001). In patients assessed as suitable for primary care, GPs would initiate investigations in 51% of cases. Consensus over primary care appropriateness was higher for paediatric than for adult attenders.

conclusionsA significant number of patients attending ED could be managed by GPs, including those requiring investigations at triage. A stronger agreement among GPs over place of care may be seen for paediatric than for adult attenders. More effective signposting of patients presenting with acute or urgent problems and supporting a greater role for primary care in relieving the severe workflow pressures in ED in the UK are potential solutions.

Indexed as

Accident & Emergency MedicineAuditPrimary Care

Identifiers

PMID24319279
PMCPMC3855530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.