Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36526315›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Validation of a classification to identify emergency department visits suitable for subacute and virtual care models: a randomised single-blinded agreement study protocol.

Ryan P Strum, Shawn Mondoux, Fabrice Mowbray, Andrew Worster, Lauren E Griffith, Walter Tavares, Paul Miller, Erich Hanel, Komal Aryal, Ravi Sivakumaran and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan P StrumHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada strumr@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1902-4734
Shawn MondouxMedicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Fabrice MowbrayHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8844-5850
Andrew WorsterHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lauren E GriffithHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2794-9692
Walter TavaresThe Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paul MillerMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Erich HanelMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Komal AryalHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Ravi SivakumaranHealth Information Management, Saint Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Andrew P CostaHealth Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9212-5641
Impact · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAMcMaster University · CASt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRedirecting suitable patients from the emergency department (ED) to alternative subacute settings may assist in reducing ED overcrowding while delivering equivalent care. The Emergency Department Avoidance Classification (EDAC) was constructed to retrospectively classify ED visits that may have been suitable for safe management in a subacute or virtual clinical setting. The EDAC has established face and content validity but has not been tested against a reference standard as a criterion.

objectivesOur primary objective is to examine the agreement between the EDAC and ED physician judgements in retrospectively identifying ED visits suitable for subacute care management. Our secondary objective is to assess the validity of ED physicians' judgement as a criterion standard. Our tertiary objective is to examine how the ED physician's perception of a virtual ED care alternative correlates with the EDAC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised single-centre, single-blinded agreement study. We will randomly select ED charts between 1 January and 31 December 2019 from an academic hospital in Hamilton, Canada. ED charts will be randomly assigned to participating ED physicians who will evaluate if this ED visit could have been managed appropriately and safely in a subacute and/or virtual model of care. Each chart will be reviewed by two physicians independently. We compute our needed sample size to be 79 charts. We will use kappa statistics to measure inter-rater agreement. A repeated measures regression model of physician ratings will provide variance estimates that we will use to assess the intraclass correlation of ED physician ratings and the EDAC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (2022-14625). If validated, the EDAC may provide an ED-based classification to identify potentially avoidable ED visits, monitor ED visit trends, and proactively delineate those best suited for subacute or virtual care models.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalEmergency TreatmentCanadaHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesEPIDEMIOLOGYHealth policyHealth & safetyOrganisation of health servicesPRIMARY CAREQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36526315
PMCPMC9764606
OpenAlexW4311687050

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.