ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of a drive-through care model as a response to the COVID-19 testing demand in the United States.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. 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.
- Patient flow management in biological events: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Changes in low-acuity patient volume in an emergency department after launching a walk-in clinic.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023Article
- Effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of a drive-through care model as a response to the COVID-19 testing demand in the United States.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Here we report the clinical performance of COVID-19 curbside screening with triage to a drive-through care pathway versus main emergency department (ED) care for ambulatory COVID-19 testing during a pandemic. Patients were evaluated from cars to prevent the demand for testing from spreading COVID-19 within the hospital. Methods: We examined the effectiveness of curbside screening to identify patients who would be tested during evaluation, patient flow from screening to care team evaluation and testing, and safety of drive-through care as 7-day ED revisits and 14-day hospital admissions. We also compared main ED efficiency versus drive-through care using ED length of stay (EDLOS). Standardized mean differences (SMD) >0.20 identify statistical significance. Results: Of 5931 ED patients seen, 2788 (47.0%) were walk-in patients. Of these patients, 1111 (39.8%) screened positive for potential COVID symptoms, of whom 708 (63.7%) were triaged to drive-through care (with 96.3% tested), and 403 (36.3%) triaged to the main ED (with 90.5% tested). The 1677 (60.2%) patients who screened negative were seen in the main ED, with 440 (26.2%) tested. Curbside screening sensitivity and specificity for predicting who ultimately received testing were 70.3% and 94.5%. Compared to the main ED, drive-through patients had fewer 7-day ED revisits (3.8% vs 12.5%, SMD = 0.321), fewer 14-day hospital readmissions (4.5% vs 15.6%, SMD = 0.37), and shorter EDLOS (0.56 vs 5.12 hours, SMD = 1.48). Conclusion: Curbside screening had high sensitivity, permitting early respiratory isolation precautions for most patients tested. Low ED revisit, hospital readmissions, and EDLOS suggest drive-through care, with appropriate screening, is safe and efficient for future respiratory illness pandemics.
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.