ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2023
Screening tool to improve patient referral to acute surgical care from accident and emergency.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing people's movement across the health system: a scoping review of referral systems within a primary health care approach.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed, first, to audit the appropriateness of surgical referrals to an acute surgical unit for urgent assessment and, second, to devise a screening tool for use in the emergency department to categorise patients into those who need an urgent surgical review and those who can be seen in an ambulatory setting within the next few days.
methodsThe first phase of the study was an audit of surgical referrals between 1 and 18 February 2020 to check the appropriateness of the surgical referral. In the second phase, a tool was designed to screen patients who did not require urgent surgical review and could be seen in the ambulatory clinic. A prospective questionnaire study was conducted from 1 February to 24 March 2020 with patients who were admitted to an acute surgical ward. Based on responses to the screening tool, patients were given the outcome of whether they can be discharged and seen in an ambulatory clinic. The accuracy of the screening tool outcome was assessed and compared with actual patient discharge outcomes by the surgical team evaluating patients' electronic medical records.
resultsIn the first audit of referrals to the acute surgical ward, 206 patients were referred to the acute surgical unit and seen by the senior surgeon. Of these, 142 (68.9%) were discharged on the same day with or without follow-up in the ambulatory surgical clinic. In the prospective questionnaire phase of the study, 98 patients completed the questionnaire. The most common presentation was abdominal pain (
conclusionA large proportion of patients who are referred to the acute surgical unit can be deferred and seen in the ambulatory clinic. The screening tool used for acute surgical referral had reasonable sensitivity and high specificity to screen patients who can be seen in ambulatory clinics. At the same time, it identified patients who were unwell and required urgent surgical admission.
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.