Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32962646›Full record

Observational studyBMC geriatrics2020

Unplanned return presentations of older patients to the emergency department: a root cause analysis.

Babiche E J M Driesen, Hanneke Merten, Cordula Wagner, H Jaap Bonjer, Prabath W B Nanayakkara

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Effectiveness of a care transitions intervention for older adults discharged home from the emergency department: A randomized controlled trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
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

5 authors.

Babiche E J M DriesenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands. b.driesen@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6809-458X
Hanneke MertenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Cordula WagnerDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
H Jaap BonjerDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Prabath W B NanayakkaraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn line with demographic changes, there is an increase in ED presentations and unplanned return presentations by older patients (≥70 years). It is important to know why these patients return to the ED shortly after their initial presentation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide insight into the root causes and potential preventability of unplanned return presentations (URP) to the ED within 30 days for older patients.

methodsA prospective observational study was conducted from February 2018 to November 2018 in an academic hospital in Amsterdam. We included 83 patients, aged 70 years and older, with an URP to the ED within 30 days of the initial ED presentation. Patients, GPs and doctors at the ED were interviewed by trained interviewers and basic administrative data were collected in order to conduct a root cause analysis using the PRISMA-method.

resultsOne hundred fifty-one root causes were identified and almost half (49%) of them were disease-related. Fifty-two percent of the patients returned to the ED within 7 days after the initial presentation. In 77% of the patients the URP was related to the initial presentation. Patients judged 17% of the URPs as potentially preventable, while doctors at the ED judged 25% and GPs 23% of the URPs as potentially preventable. In none of the cases, there was an overall agreement from all three perspectives on the judgement that an URP was potentially preventable.

conclusionDisease-related factors were most often identified for an URP and half of the patients returned to the ED within 7 days. The majority of the URPs was judged as not preventable. However, an URP should trigger healthcare workers to focus on the patient's process of care and their needs and to anticipate on potential progression of disease. Future research should assess whether this may prevent that patients have to return to the ED.

Indexed as

Root Cause AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHumansMalePatient ReadmissionPhysiciansProspective StudiesAcute careElderlyEmergency departmentOlder patientsPreventabilityReturn presentationsRoot causes

Identifiers

PMID32962646
PMCPMC7510142

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.