ArticleBMJ open2017
Patient experience of different regional models of urgent and emergency care: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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.
- The impact of COVID-19 on an Irish Emergency Department (ED): a cross-sectional study exploring the factors influencing ED utilisation prior to and during the pandemic from the patient perspective.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Article
- The "better data, better planning" census: a cross-sectional, multi-centre study investigating the factors influencing patient attendance at the emergency department in Ireland.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The drivers and impact of emergency care reconfiguration in Ireland: Results from a large mixed-methods research programme.Future healthcare journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Development of performance indicators for systems of urgent and emergency care in the Republic of Ireland: Systematic review and consensus development exercise.HRB open research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare user experiences of 8 regional urgent and emergency care systems in the Republic of Ireland, and explore potential avenues for improvement.
designA cross-sectional survey.
settingSeveral distinct models of urgent and emergency care operate in Ireland, as system reconfiguration has been implemented in some regions but not others. The Urgent Care System Questionnaire was used to explore service users' experiences with urgent and emergency care. Linear regression and logistic regression were used to detect regional variation in each of the 3 domains and overall ratings of care.
participantsA nationally representative sample (N=8002) of the general population was contacted by telephone, yielding 1205 participants who self-identified as having used urgent and emergency care services in the previous 3 months.
main outcome measuresPatient experience was assessed across 3 domains:
resultsService users in Dublin North East gave lower ratings on the
conclusionsNo consistent relationship was found between the type of urgent and emergency care model in different regions and patient experience. Scale-level data may not offer a useful metric for exploring the impact of system-level service change.
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.