Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27378228›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2016

Is it a matter of urgency? A survey of assessments by walk-in patients and doctors of the urgency level of their encounters at a general emergency outpatient clinic in Oslo, Norway.

Sven Eirik Ruud, Per Hjortdahl, Bård Natvig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Non-urgent patients in emergency centres in Western Cape district health services.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patients Attending Emergency Departments.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    Observational
  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

3 authors.

Sven Eirik RuudDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. s.e.ruud@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0003-2906-3702
Per HjortdahlDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Bård NatvigDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency room (ER) use is increasing in several countries. Variability in the proportion of non-urgent ER visits was found to range from 5 to 90 % (median 32 %). Non-urgent emergency visits are considered an inappropriate and inefficient use of the health-care system because they may lead to higher expenses, crowding, treatment delays, and loss of continuity of health care provided by a general practitioner. Urgency levels of doctor-walk-in patient encounters were assessed based on their region of origin in a diverse Norwegian population.

methodsAn anonymous, multilingual questionnaire was distributed to all walk-in patients at a general emergency outpatient clinic in Oslo during two weeks in September 2009. We analysed demographic data, patient-doctor assessments of the level of urgency, and the results of the consultation. We used descriptive statistics to obtain frequencies with 95 % confidence interval (CI) for assessed levels of urgency and outcomes. Concordance between the patients' and doctors' assessments was analysed using a Kendall tau-b test. We used binary logistic regression modelling to quantify associations of explanatory variables and outcomes according to urgency level assessments.

resultsThe analysis included 1821 walk-in patients. Twenty-four per cent of the patients considered their emergency consultation to be non-urgent, while the doctors considered 64 % of encounters to be non-urgent. The concordance between the assessments by the patient and by their doctor was positive but low, with a Kendall tau-b coefficient of 0.202 (p < 0.001). Adjusted logistic regression analysis showed that patients from Eastern Europe (odds ratio (OR) = 3.04; 95 % CI 1.60-5.78), Asia and Turkey (OR = 4.08; 95 % CI 2.43-6.84), and Africa (OR = 8.47; 95 % CI 3.87-18.5) reported significantly higher urgency levels compared with Norwegians. The doctors reported no significant difference in assessment of urgency based on the patient's region of origin, except for Africans (OR = 0.64; 95 % CI 0.43-0.96).

conclusionThis study reveals discrepancies between assessments by walk-in patients and doctors of the urgency level of their encounters at a general emergency clinic. The patients' self-assessed perception of the urgency level was related to their region of origin.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory Care FacilitiesChildChild, PreschoolEmergenciesEmergency Service, HospitalEmigrants and ImmigrantsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLogistic ModelsMaleEmergency medicineGeneral practitionerHealth literacyImmigrantsLevel of urgencyPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID27378228
PMCPMC4932670

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.