Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28900665›Full record

ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2019

[Questionnaire for the utilization of the Emergency Department : Implications for the patient survey].

J Frick, M Möckel, M Schmiedhofer, J Searle, B Erdmann, M Erhart, A Slagman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    2019
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J FrickArbeitsbereich Notfallmedizin/Rettungsstellen (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland. johann.frick@charite.de.
M MöckelArbeitsbereich Notfallmedizin/Rettungsstellen (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
M SchmiedhoferArbeitsbereich Notfallmedizin/Rettungsstellen (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
J SearleArbeitsbereich Notfallmedizin/Rettungsstellen (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
B ErdmannNotaufnahme Klinikum Wolfsburg, Sauerbruchstr. 7, 38440, Wolfsburg, Deutschland.
M ErhartZentralinstitut für die kassenärztliche Versorgung in Deutschland, Herbert-Lewin-Platz 3, 10623, Berlin, Deutschland.
A SlagmanArbeitsbereich Notfallmedizin/Rettungsstellen (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor several years, Emergency Departments (ED) in Germany have observed increasing patient numbers, resulting in ED crowding. This leads to the question of whether patients with nonurgent conditions could also receive adequate treatment in primary care. Our objective was to develop a quantitative questionnaire to investigate in a larger patient group the reasons for this and to describe the implications for a patient survey in the ED.

methodsThe development of the questionnaire was based on a literature search and the results of the qualitative EPICS-2 study. Two pretest surveys were conducted in three EDs at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. We included patients aged ≥ 18 years with outpatient treatment and the categories blue (nonurgent), green (standard), or yellow (urgent) according to the Manchester Triage System (MTS).

resultsIn total, 189 patients were recruited in two surveys (pretest 1: n = 89, pretest 2 n = 100). The final questionnaire includes 24 items, which were evaluated and adapted during both pretests. The items evaluate basic clinical characteristics, reasons for choosing the ED, prior contacts in primary care, utilization of primary care after-hours services as well as sociodemographic characteristics. Data from the hospital information system were used to link the survey data with clinical characteristics.

conclusionsThe questionnaire is based on reasons for ED utilization. We recommend the written, self-applied questionnaire for patient surveys with plausibility checks conducted by staff. It is necessary to consider the heterogenic study surroundings in the ED, which requires a lot of flexibility during data collection.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPrimary Health CareGermanyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMedical OveruseQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesEmergency DepartmentHealth care researchNonurgent conditionsQuestionnaireUtilization

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.