Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31752662›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2019

Exploring emergency department visits: factors influencing individuals' decisions, knowledge of triage systems and waiting times, and experiences during visits to a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Nawaf Alhabdan, Faisal Alhusain, Abdulkareem Alharbi, Muatassem Alsadhan, Moath Hakami, Emad Masuadi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Knowledge and attitude towards emergency department utilization in Riyadh.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Nawaf AlhabdanCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Faisal AlhusainKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. faisalaalhusain@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8422-5244
Abdulkareem AlharbiCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Muatassem AlsadhanCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Moath HakamiCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Emad MasuadiCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increased utilization of emergency departments (EDs) in many countries. Additionally, it is reported that there are major delays in delivering care to ED patients. Longer waiting times are associated with poor patient satisfaction, whereas an understanding of the triage process increases satisfaction. This study aimed to assess ED visitor's awareness of the triage procedure and their preferences regarding delayed communication.

methodsCross-sectional study of King Abdulaziz Medical City - Emergency Department visitors using a previously validated questionnaire (Seibert 2014) which was translated to Arabic, piloted, and then used for this study.

resultsA total of 334 questionnaires were returned. The mean age of respondents was 33 years. Regarding primary care physicians, only 16% of respondents said that they have one. About 21% of those tried to communicate with them before coming to the ED. Even though only 11% of respondents knew exactly what triage is, 51% were able to correctly explain why some patients are seen before others. Statistical analysis did not show any factors that are associated with increased knowledge of triage. Most respondents (75%) want to hear updates regarding delays with 69% of them preferring to be updated every 30 min.

conclusionsThis study showed that the majority of patients do not know what triage means and that most of them want to know how the ED works. Moreover, a lot of respondents said that they do not have a primary care physician. These results support increasing patient awareness by education and involving them if any delay happens.

Indexed as

Emergency medicinePatient preferencePrimary health careTriage knowledge

Identifiers

PMID31752662
PMCPMC6868738

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.