Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34980613›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Service use, clinical outcomes and user experience associated with urgent care services that use telephone-based digital triage: a systematic review.

Vanashree Sexton, Jeremy Dale, Carol Bryce, James Barry, Elizabeth Sellers, Helen Atherton

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

6 authors.

Vanashree SextonUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK ash.sexton@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6935-016X
Jeremy DaleUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9256-3553
Carol BryceUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1484-9032
James BarryUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Elizabeth SellersUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Helen AthertonUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate service use, clinical outcomes and user experience related to telephone-based digital triage in urgent care.

designSystematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for literature published between 1 March 2000 and 1 April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies of any design investigating patterns of triage advice, wider service use, clinical outcomes and user experience relating to telephone based digital triage in urgent care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted data and conducted quality assessments using the mixed methods appraisal tool. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse findings.

resultsThirty-one studies were included, with the majority being UK based; most investigated nurse-led digital triage (n=26). Eight evaluated the impact on wider healthcare service use following digital triage implementation, typically reporting reduction or no change in service use. Six investigated patient level service use, showing mixed findings relating to patients' adherence with triage advice. Evaluation of clinical outcomes was limited. Four studies reported on hospitalisation rates of digitally triaged patients and highlighted potential triage errors where patients appeared to have not been given sufficiently high urgency advice. Overall, service users reported high levels of satisfaction, in studies of both clinician and non-clinician led digital triage, but with some dissatisfaction over the relevance and number of triage questions.

conclusionsFurther research is needed into patient level service use, including patients' adherence with triage advice and how this influences subsequent use of services. Further evaluation of clinical outcomes using larger datasets and comparison of different digital triage systems is needed to explore consistency and safety. The safety and effectiveness of non-clinician led digital triage also needs evaluation. Such evidence should contribute to improvement of digital triage tools and service delivery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178500.

Indexed as

TelephoneTriageAmbulatory CareHospitalizationHumanshealth services administration & managementorganisation of health servicespublic healthqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34980613
PMCPMC8724705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.