Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31898116›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2020

Effectiveness of Acute Care Remote Triage Systems: a Systematic Review.

Joel C Boggan, John Paul Shoup, John D Whited, Elizabeth Van Voorhees, Adelaide M Gordon, Sharron Rushton, Allison A Lewinski, Amir A Tabriz, Soheir Adam, Jessica Fulton and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Multidisciplinary clinician perspectives on avoidable emergency department use by patients during cancer treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Joel C BogganHospital Medicine Team (111M), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. Joel.boggan@va.gov.ORCID 0000-0003-3564-2807
John Paul ShoupBJC Medical Group, St. Louis, MO, USA.
John D WhitedDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Elizabeth Van VoorheesHospital Medicine Team (111M), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Adelaide M GordonCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Sharron RushtonSchool of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Allison A LewinskiCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Amir A TabrizDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Soheir AdamDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Jessica FultonHospital Medicine Team (111M), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Andrzej S KosinskiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Megan G Van NoordUniversity of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
John W WilliamsDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Karen M GoldsteinDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Jennifer M GierischDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Peer Support for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Female VeteransIK2HX001540 · VA · DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI GOLDSTEIN, KAREN M. · 2015 to 2020
–
HSRD VA 13-263HSRD VA CDA 13-263HSRD VA CIN 13-410HSRD VA ESP 09-010HSRD VA IK2 HX001540HSRD VA SDR 16-192RRD VA IK2 RX001298VA CIN 13-410VA ESP 09-010VA TPH 21-000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes.

methodsEnglish-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias.

resultsThe literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes.

conclusionOur review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesTriageEmergency Service, HospitalHumansPrimary Health CareTelephonehealthcare utilizationpatient safetyremote triagesystematic reviewtelephone triage

Identifiers

PMID31898116
PMCPMC7352001

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.