ArticleBMJ open2021
Quality of care, resource use and patient outcome by use of emergency response team compared with standard care for critically ill medical patients in the emergency department: a retrospective single-centre cohort study from Norway.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical care delivery models in emergency departments: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of related outcome effects.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Emergency critical care: closing the gap between onset of critical illness and intensive care unit admission.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to investigate quality of care, resource use and patient outcome in management by an emergency response team versus standard care for critically ill medical patients in the emergency department (ED). The emergency response team was multidisciplinary and had eight members, with a registrar in internal medicine as team leader.
designRegister-based retrospective cohort study.
settingTertiary hospital in Norway.
participantsThe study included 1120 patients with National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) 5-10 points from 2015 and 2016. Patients missing ≥3 NEWS2 part scores, <18 years and with orders 'Not for ICU' or 'Not for resuscitation' were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of care: pain assessment documented, analgesics given within 20 min, complete set of vital signs documented and antibiotics within 60 min if sepsis. Resource use: >3 diagnostic interventions, critical care in the ED and ED length of stay (LOS) <180 min. Patient outcome: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU LOS <66 hours, hospital LOS <194 hours and mortality.
resultsThe median age was 66 years, 53.5% were male, 44.3% were admitted to the ICU and the mortality rate was 10.6%. Altogether 691 patients received team management and 429 standard care. Team management had a positive association with 'complete set of vital signs documented' (OR 1.720, CI 1.254 to 2.360), 'analgesics given within 20 minutes' (OR 3.268, CI 1.375 to 7.767) and 'antibiotics within 60 minutes if sepsis' (OR 7.880, CI 3.322 to 18.691), but a negative association with ' pain assessment documented' (OR 0.068, CI 0.037 to 0.128). Team management was also associated with 'critical care in the ED' (OR 9.900, CI 7.127 to 13.751), 'ED LOS <180 min' (OR 2.944, CI 2.070 to 4.187), 'ICU admission' (OR 2.763, CI 1.962 to 3.891) and 'mortality' (OR 1.882, CI 1.142 to 3.102).
conclusionsTeam management showed positive results for quality of care and resource use. The results for later outcomes such as mortality, ICU LOS and hospital LOS were more ambiguous.
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.