Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24381681›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2013

National Study of Non-urgent Emergency Department Visits and Associated Resource Utilization.

Leah S Honigman, Jennifer L Wiler, Sean Rooks, Adit A Ginde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Factors associated with hospital revisitation within 7 days among patients discharged at triage: a case-control study.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Leah S HonigmanBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jennifer L WilerUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver, Colorado.
Sean RooksUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver, Colorado.
Adit A GindeUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver, Colorado.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionReducing non-urgent emergency department (ED) visits has been targeted as a method to produce cost savings. To better describe these visits, we sought to compare resource utilization of ED visits characterized as non-urgent at triage to immediate, emergent, or urgent (IEU) visits.

methodsWe performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Urgency of visits was categorized using the assigned 5-level triage acuity score. We analyzed resource utilization, including diagnostic testing, treatment, and hospitalization within each acuity categorization.

resultsFrom 2006-2009, 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-11.2) of United States ED visits were categorized as non-urgent. Most (87.8% [95% CI, 86.3-89.2]) non-urgent visits had some diagnostic testing or treatment in the ED. Imaging was common in non-urgent visits (29.8% [95% CI, 27.8-31.8]), although not as frequent as for IEU visits (52.9% [95% CI, 51.6-54.2]). Similarly, procedures were performed less frequently for non-urgent (34.1% [95% CI, 31.8-36.4]) compared to IEU visits (56.3% [95% CI, 53.5-59.0]). Medication administration was similar between the 2 groups (80.6% [95% CI, 79.5-81.7] vs. 76.3% [95% CI, 74.7-77.8], respectively). The rate of hospital admission was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3-4.8) vs. 19.8% (95% CI, 18.4-21.3) for IEU visits, with admission to a critical care setting for 0.5% of non-urgent visits (95% CI, 0.3-0.6) vs. 3.4% (95% CI, 3.1-3.8) of IEU visits.

conclusionsFor most non-urgent ED visits, some diagnostic or therapeutic intervention was performed. Relatively low, but notable proportions of non-urgent ED visits were admitted to the hospital, sometimes to a critical care setting. These data call into question non-urgent ED visits being categorized as "unnecessary," particularly in the setting of limited access to timely primary care for acute illness or injury.

Identifiers

PMID24381681
PMCPMC3876304

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.