Observational studyClinical medicine (London, England)2016
'The time it takes…' How doctors spend their time admitting a patient during the acute medical take.
Observational study in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Potential of Ambient AI for Inpatient Documentation: A Qualitative Study with Junior Doctors.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- A survey of the workload generated by older surgical patients referred to on-call medical registrars-SNAP-3.BJA open · 2025Article
- Comparison of a Novel Machine Learning-Based Clinical Query Platform With Traditional Guideline Searches for Hospital Emergencies: Prospective Pilot Study of User Experience and Time Efficiency.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Omitting repetitive clerking does not disadvantage cardiology patients and reduces duplication.Future healthcare journal · 2023Article
- Observational analysis of documentation burden and data duplication in trauma patient pathways at a major trauma centre.BMJ open quality · 2023Observational
- Optimization of Patient Flow in Urgent Care Centers Using a Digital Tool for Recording Patient Symptoms and History: Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Use of Self-Reported Computerized Medical History Taking for Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department - the Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS): Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Scenario-based design for a hospital setting: An exploratory study of opportunities and barriers for personal health records usage.Future healthcare journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient safety depends on adequate staffing but the number of doctors required for safe staffing for medical emergencies is not known. We measured the duration of the admission process for patients seen by medical teams in emergency departments (EDs) and acute medical units. History taking and examination by a core medical trainee took 22 minutes for a patient referred from the ED and 21 minutes for a patient referred from primary care. A complete admission clerking with prescription and ordering of investigations ranged from a mean of 15 minutes for a consultant in acute medicine to a mean of 55 minutes for a foundation year 1 trainee. The duration of post-take ward rounds also showed significant variability.Our data can be used to model staffing patterns if combined with information about admission numbers and local set up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.