ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2021
Who provides what care? An analysis of clinical focus among the national emergency care workforce.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workforce Attrition Among Emergency Medicine Non-Physician Practitioners.Annals of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Estimating the size and scope of the academic emergency physician workforce.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024Article
- Emergency medicine physician workforce attrition differences by age and gender.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2023Article
- Rising high-acuity emergency care services independently billed by advanced practice providers, 2013 to 2019.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2023Article
- The 2013 to 2019 Emergency Medicine Workforce: Clinician Entry and Attrition Across the US Geography.Annals of emergency medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinician expertise has been associated with improved patient outcomes, yet ED clinicians often work in various clinical settings beyond the ED and, therefore, may risk expertise by having less clinical focus. We sought to describe clinical focus among the emergency care workforce nationally.
methodsUsing the 2017 Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), we performed a cross-sectional analysis of clinicians receiving reimbursement for emergency care Evaluation & Management (E/M) services from Medicare fee-for-service Part B. Clinicians were categorized by type as EM physicians, non-EM physicians, and advanced practice providers (APPs). The primary outcome was the clinical focus of the individual clinician, defined as the proportion of E/M services within the ED setting relative to a clinician's total E/M services across all practice settings.
resultsOf 65,710 unique clinicians providing care to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the ED setting, 39,016 (59.4%) were classified as EM physicians, 8123 (12.4%) as non-EM physicians, and 18,571 (28.5%) as APPs. The individual clinician median focus was 92.8% (interquartile range [IQR]: 87.0, 100.0) for EM physicians, 45.2% (IQR: 5.1, 97.0) for non-EM physicians, and 100.0% (IQR: 96.3, 100.0) for APPs.
conclusionEM physicians have twice as much clinical focus in comparison to non-EM physicians providing emergency care to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. These findings underscore the importance of diverse training and certification programs to ensure access to clinically focused ED clinicians.
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.