ArticleBMC health services research2020
Self-referred walk-in patients in the emergency department - who and why? Consultation determinants in a multicenter study of respiratory patients in Berlin, Germany.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a Symptom Checker App on Patient-Physician Interaction Among Self-Referred Walk-In Patients in the Emergency Department: Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Randomized, Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Comparing emergency medical service and walk-in patients in German emergency departments: a prospective multicentre survey.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- General Practice-led urgent care practice vs. emergency room - satisfaction of ambulatory patients with low urgency medical problems.The European journal of general practice · 2025Observational
- Prior Outpatient Care Use in Emergency Department Patients with Low- and High-acuity Conditions in Germany.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Could low-acuity emergency medical services patients be redirected to primary care? Findings from a multi-center survey in Berlin, Germany.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Emergency department visits as a potential opportunity to promote primary care attachment and modify utilization patterns - results of a pilot study in Berlin, Germany.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Public Beliefs About Accessibility and Quality of Emergency Departments in Germany.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Recruiting patients for falls prevention in the emergency department - worth the challenge.BMC geriatrics · 2023Observational
- Perceived treatment urgency of common mental disorders in the German population.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Do patients referred to emergency departments after being assessed in primary care differ from other ED patients? Retrospective analysis of a random sample from two German metropolitan EDs.International journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Identification of low-acuity attendances in routine clinical information documented in German Emergency Departments.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Primary and secondary data in emergency medicine health services research - a comparative analysis in a regional research network on multimorbid patients.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Observational
- Article
- Emergency department consultations for respiratory symptoms revisited: exploratory investigation of longitudinal trends in patients' perspective on care, health care utilization, and general and mental health, from a multicenter study in Berlin, Germany.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Improving Emergency Department Patient-Physician Conversation Through an Artificial Intelligence Symptom-Taking Tool: Mixed Methods Pilot Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Observational
- Self-reported health and life satisfaction in older emergency department patients: sociodemographic, disease-related and care-specific associated factors.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundEmergency department (ED) consultations are on the rise, and frequently consultations by non-urgent patients have been held accountable. Self-referred walk-in (SRW) consulters supposedly represent a predominantly less urgent patient population. The EMACROSS study aimed to explore consultation determinants and motives in SRW patients with respiratory symptoms.
methodsMulticenter survey of adult ED patients with respiratory complaints in eight emergency departments in central Berlin, Germany. Secondary hospital records data including diagnoses was additionally assessed. Characteristics of SRW and non-SRW patients were compared. Determinants of SRW consultation were evaluated by binary logistic regression. Consultation motives were analyzed descriptively. As a supplemental approach, network analysis (lasso-regularized mixed graphical model) was performed to explore connections between consultation determinants, consultation features and motives.
resultsBetween June 2017 and November 2018, n = 472 participants were included, the median age was 55 years (range 18-96), 53.2% of patients were male and n = 185 cases (39.2%) were SRW consulters. The SRW group showed lower proportions of potentially severe (pneumonia and respiratory failure, p < 0.001, χ
conclusionsAs to "who" consults, this study identified demographic and medical predictors of SRW utilization. The said markers seem only remotely connected to "why" people decide for SRW visits. To alleviate ED crowding by addressing frequent SRW consultation motives, interventions focused on the ability for symptom self-assessment and at better-accessible alternative care seem sensible.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011930 ); date: 2017/04/25.
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.