Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2021
Management of non-urgent paediatric emergency department attendances by GPs: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Assessing inequalities in paediatric emergency department admissions in the Northwest of England: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Coming in hot: a qualitative investigation into perceptions of parents and doctors of reasons for the presentation of children with fever to the emergency department in England.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Article
- Raising AWaRe-ness of Antimicrobial Stewardship Challenges in Pediatric Emergency Care: Results from the PERFORM Study Assessing Consistency and Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescribing Across Europe.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-urgent emergency department (ED) attendances are common among children. Primary care management may not only be more clinically appropriate, but may also improve patient experience and be more cost-effective.
aimTo determine the impact on admissions, waiting times, antibiotic prescribing, and treatment costs of integrating a GP into a paediatric ED. DESIGN AND
settingRetrospective cohort study explored non-urgent ED presentations in a paediatric ED in north-west England.
methodFrom 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2017, a GP was situated in the ED from 2.00 pm until 10.00 pm, 7 days a week. All children triaged as 'green' using the Manchester Triage System (non-urgent) were considered to be 'GP appropriate'. In cases of GP non-availability, children considered non-urgent were managed by ED staff. Clinical and operational outcomes, as well as the healthcare costs of children managed by GPs and ED staff across the same timeframe over a 2-year period were compared.
resultsOf 115 000 children attending the ED over the study period, a complete set of data were available for 13 099 categorised as 'GP appropriate'; of these, 8404 (64.2%) were managed by GPs and 4695 (35.8%) by ED staff. Median duration of ED stay was 39 min (interquartile range [IQR] 16-108 min) in the GP group and 165 min (IQR 104-222 min) in the ED group (
conclusionGiven the rising demand for children's emergency services, GP in ED care models may improve the management of non-urgent ED presentations. However, further research that incorporates causative study designs is required.
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.