Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26083338›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Understanding Low-Acuity Visits to the Pediatric Emergency Department.

Ken J Farion, Megan Wright, Roger Zemek, Gina Neto, Anna Karwowska, Sandra Tse, Sarah Reid, Mona Jabbour, Stephanie Poirier, Katherine A Moreau and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. 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. A Parental Smoking Cessation Intervention in the Pediatric Emergency Setting: A Randomized Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Parental decision-making for non-urgent emergency department presentations in Victoria, Australia.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Operational Impact of Redirection From the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Matched Cross-Sectional Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

11 authors.

Ken J FarionDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Megan WrightEmergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Roger ZemekDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Gina NetoDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Anna KarwowskaDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sandra TseDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah ReidDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mona JabbourDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Emergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stephanie PoirierEmergency Department, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Katherine A MoreauDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nicholas BarrowmanDepartments of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clincial Research Unit, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCanadian pediatric emergency department visits are increasing, with a disproportionate increase in low-acuity visits locally (33% of volume in 2008-09, 41% in 2011-12). We sought to understand: 1) presentation patterns and resource implications; 2) parents' perceptions and motivations; and 3) alternate health care options considered prior to presenting with low-acuity problems.

methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study at our tertiary pediatric emergency department serving two provinces to explore differences between patients with and without a primary care provider. During four, 2-week study periods over 1 year, parents of low-acuity visits received an anonymous survey. Presentation times, interventions, diagnoses and dispositions were captured on a data collection form linked to the survey by study number.

resultsParents completed 2,443 surveys (74.1% response rate), with survey-data collection form pairs available for 2,146 visits. Overall, 89.7% of respondents had a primary care provider; 68% were family physicians. Surprisingly, 40% of visits occurred during weekday office hours and 27.3% occurred within 4 hours of symptom onset; 67.5% of those early presenters were for injuries. Few parents sought care from their primary care provider (25%), health information line (20.7%), or urgent care clinic (18.5%); 36% reported that they believed their child's problem required the emergency department. Forty-five percent required only a history, physical exam and reassurance; only 11% required an intervention not available in an office setting. Patients without a primary care provider were significantly more likely to present during weekday office hours (p = 0.003), have longer symptom duration (p<0.001), and not know of other options (p = 0.001).

conclusionsMany parents seek pediatric emergency department care for low-acuity problems despite their child having a primary care provider. Ensuring timely access to these providers may help reduce pediatric emergency department overuse. Educational initiatives should inform parents about low-acuity problems and where appropriate care can/should be accessed.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAdolescentCanadaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMedical OveruseOffice VisitsParentsPatient Education as TopicProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26083338
PMCPMC4471269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.