Observational studyBMC geriatrics2020
Is the fast-track process efficient and safe for older adults admitted to the emergency department?
Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shortening emergency department length of stay: Fast track, short-stay unit and acute medical unit.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Review
- Variation in Emergency Department Physician Admitting Practices and Subsequent Mortality.JAMA internal medicine · 2025Article
- Organizational Factors Contributing to Duplicate Record Data Entry Errors in Emergency Room Fast-Track Admissions.Advances in health information science and practice · 2025Article
- Review
- Impact of Geriatric Admissions on Workload in the Emergency Department.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Prediction of hospitalization using artificial intelligence for urgent patients in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Overuse of Health Care in the Emergency Services in Chile.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficiency of the fast-track (FT) process in the management of patients in Emergency Departments is well demonstrated, but there is a lack of research focused on older adults. The aim of our study was to verify whether the FT process is efficient and safe for older adults admitted to ED.
methodsObservational case-control single-centre study.
resultsFive hundred four cases and 504 controls were analysed. The mean age was 75 years, and there was a predominance of women. In total 96% of subjects were classified with a "less-urgent" tag. The length of stay was significantly lower in the fast-track group than in the control group (median 178 min, interquartile range 184 min, and 115 min, interquartile range 69 min, respectively, p < 0.001), as well as the time spent between the ED physician's visit and patient discharge (median 78 min, interquartile range 120 min, and median 3 min, interquartile range 6 min, respectively, p < 0.001). There weren't any increases in the number of unplanned readmissions within 48 h, 7 days and 30 days.
conclusionsThe fast-track appears to be an efficient and safe strategy to improve the management of older adults admitted to the ED with minor complaints.
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.