Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24351497›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013

Reducing inappropriate accident and emergency department attendances: a systematic review of primary care service interventions.

Sharif A Ismail, Daniel C Gibbons, Shamini Gnani

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sharif A IsmailDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London.
Daniel C GibbonsDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London.
Shamini GnaniDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2011-04-054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInappropriate attendances may account for up to 40% of presentations at accident and emergency (A&E) departments. There is considerable interest from health practitioners and policymakers in interventions to reduce this burden.

aimTo review the evidence on primary care service interventions to reduce inappropriate A&E attendances. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of UK and international primary care interventions.

methodStudies published in English between 1 January 1986 and 23 August 2011 were identified from PubMed, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Collaboration, and Health Technology Assessment databases. The outcome measures were A&E attendances, patient satisfaction, clinical outcome, and intervention cost. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts of retrieved results, with adjudication of disagreements conducted by the third. Studies were quality assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist system where applicable.

resultsIn total, 9916 manuscripts were identified, of which 34 were reviewed. Telephone triage was the single best-evaluated intervention. This resulted in negligible impact on A&E attendance, but exhibited acceptable patient satisfaction and clinical safety; cost effectiveness was uncertain. The limited available evidence suggests that emergency nurse practitioners in community settings and community health centres may reduce A&E attendance. For all other interventions considered in this review (walk-in centres, minor injuries units, and out-of-hours general practice), the effects on A&E attendance, patient outcomes, and cost were inconclusive.

conclusionStudies showed a negligible effect on A&E attendance for all interventions; data on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness are limited. There is an urgent need to examine all aspects of primary care service interventions that aim to reduce inappropriate A&E attendance.

Indexed as

After-Hours CareAmbulatory CareCommunity Health CentersCost-Benefit AnalysisEmergency Service, HospitalGeneral PracticeHumansNurse PractitionersPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareRemote ConsultationTelephoneTriageUnnecessary Procedures

Identifiers

PMID24351497
PMCPMC3839390

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.