ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2023
[Patients treated by general practitioners in a university emergency department before and after implementation of a triage system].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Quo vadis: Streaming in emergency and acute care? : Results of an online survey on current models of patient streaming and integrated care in emergency departments in Germany].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Article
- [OPTINOFA-Intelligent assistance service for structured assessment in the emergency department].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Article
- Health care utilization of patients with acute abdominal pain before and after emergency department visits.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a university emergency department (ED), patients with low treatment urgency and general medical complaints are assigned to general practitioners within the ED. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) was implemented to determine the urgency of treatment.
objectivesTo investigate the impact of the ESI implementation on the patient population treated by general practitioners and to show the distribution of ESI categories among these patients.
methodsComparison of emergency patients treated by general practitioners over 6 months before (t0) and after (t1) ESI implementation using routine data and an evaluation form to be completed by the general practitioner. The analysis was carried out descriptively and using the Χ
resultsAt t0, 615 treatment cases and at t1 751 cases were analyzed. There were no significant differences in age, gender, the proportion of patients being referred to ED, or hospital admissions. The ESI classification was predominantly in the low urgency categories ESI 5 (37%) and ESI 4 (46%), with 8% of patients in ESI 3 or 2. The predicted resource needs matched for 76% of patients in ESI 5, for 36% in ESI 4, and for 44% of patients in ESI 3. Hospital admission was required for 3% of ESI 5 patients and 7% of ESI 4 patients.
conclusionEven for patients with low treatment urgency, hospital admission may be indicated. In addition, differences from the predicted resource requirements indicate triaging problems in the patient population studied. Thus, the ESI assessment does not seem suitable to redirect patients to non-ED-based outpatient care.
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.