ArticleJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale2020
Telephone consultations with otolaryngology - head and neck surgery reduced emergency visits and specialty consultations in northern Alberta.
Article in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing health and cancer disparities: an environmental scan of three promising health care access interventions in Alberta, Canada.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- How primary and tertiary care services collaborate in urgent care delivery: an evaluation of general practice advice lines.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on transfers between long-term care and emergency departments across Alberta.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Infectious disease hotlines to provide advice to general practitioners: a prospective study.BMC health services research · 2023Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRAAPID (Referral, Access, Advice, Placement, Information, and Destination) is a 24-h call center in Alberta, Canada, facilitating urgent telephone consultations between physicians and specialists. We evaluated the extent to which RAAPID calls to Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) reduced visits to the emergency department and specialty clinics.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study evaluating all telephone consultations to OHNS from physicians in northern Alberta between 2013 and 2014 (T1) (where consultations by residents occurred) and 2015 to 2017 (T2) (where consultations were done by consultants during office hours and residents during after hours). Outcomes of the calls included medical advice, specialty clinic referrals, and emergency department (ED) referrals. Differences in the reduction of ED visits and costs, overall as well as in T1 and T2, were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.
resultsOverall, 62.3% (1064/1709) of telephone consultations reduced ED visits consisting of advice being provided (n = 884; 83.1%) and referral to specialty clinics (n = 180; 16.9%). The adjusted odds ratio of calls reducing emergency visits in T2 as compared to T1 was 2.47 (95% CI 1.99 to 3.08). The adjusted odds ratio of reducing ED visits during office hours compared to after-hours 2.54 (95% CI 1.77-3.64). The estimated direct costs avoided from ED visits in T1 and T2 were $42,224.22 and $114,393.86, respectively.
conclusionRAAPID telephone consultations to OHNS were effective in reducing ED visits and healthcare costs. This model should be considered in other areas to improve efficiencies within the health system.
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.