Observational studyBMJ open2016
Determinants of out-of-hours service users' potentially inappropriate referral or non-referral to an emergency department: a retrospective cohort study in a local health authority, Veneto Region, Italy.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying Avoidable Emergency Department Visits and the Potential Role of Community Health Centers in Northern Italy: A Retrospective Observational Study.Health care science · 2026Article
- Identification of low-acuity attendances in routine clinical information documented in German Emergency Departments.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Patient safety culture in Italian out-of-hours primary care service: a national cross-sectional survey study.BJGP open · 2020Article
- Factors affecting medical file documentation during telephone triage at an emergency call centre: a cross-sectional study of out-of-hours home visits by general practitioners in France.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Role of out of hours primary care service in limiting inappropriate access to emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
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
backgroundA growing presence of inappropriate patients has been recognised as one of the main factors influencing emergency department (ED) overcrowding, which is a very widespread problem all over the world. On the other hand, out-of-hours (OOH) physicians must avoid delaying the diagnostic and therapeutic course of patients with urgent medical conditions. The aim of this study was to analyse the appropriateness of patient management by OOH services, in terms of their potentially inappropriate referral or non-referral of non-emergency cases to the ED.
methodsThis was an observational retrospective cohort study based on data collected in 2011 by the local health authority No. 4 in the Veneto Region (Italy). After distinguishing between patients contacting the OOH service who were or were not referred to the ED, and checking for patients actually presenting to the ED within 24 hours thereafter, these patients' medical management was judged as potentially appropriate or inappropriate.
resultsThe analysis considered 22 662 OOH service contacts recorded in 2011. The cases of potentially inappropriate non-referral to the ED were 392 (1.7% of all contacts), as opposed to 1207 potentially inappropriate referrals (5.3% of all contacts). Age, nationality, type of disease and type of intervention by the OOH service were the main variables associated with the appropriateness of patient management.
conclusionsThese findings may be useful for pinpointing the factors associated with a potentially inappropriate patient management by OOH services and thus contribute to improving the deployment of healthcare and the quality of care delivered by OOH services.
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.