Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34731198›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE trial): A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Stefan Morreel, Hilde Philips, Diana De Graeve, Koenraad G Monsieurs, Jarl K Kampen, Jasmine Meysman, Eva Lefevre, Veronique Verhoeven

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03793972 (Triaging and Referring in Adjacent General and Emergency Departments), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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.

NCT03793972 nacompletednot on this map

Triaging and Referring in Adjacent General and Emergency Departments (the TRIAGE-trial): a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversiteit AntwerpenRan2019 to 2019Enrolled8,158ConditionsTriageArmsTriage with referral to primary care, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stefan MorreelDepartment of Family and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6090-2426
Hilde PhilipsDepartment of Family and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Diana De GraeveDepartment of Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Koenraad G MonsieursDepartment ASTARC, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Jarl K KampenDepartment of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Jasmine MeysmanDepartment of Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Eva LefevreDepartment of Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Veronique VerhoevenDepartment of Family and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
University of Antwerp · BEAntwerp University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether a new triage system safely diverts a proportion of emergency department (ED) patients to a general practitioner cooperative (GPC).

methodsUnblinded randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was triage by a nurse using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System assigning low-risk patients to the GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment; it was not communicated during control weekends (all patients remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care patients (the opinion of the treating physician was the gold standard).

resultsIn the intervention group, 838/6294 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC, in the control group this was 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In total, 599/6294 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the reason for encounter, age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) were referred back to the ED, three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised.

conclusionsED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972.

Indexed as

TriageAdultAfter-Hours CareAgedEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleGeneral PractitionersHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesPatientsPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID34731198
PMCPMC8565772
OpenAlexW3210738505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.