ArticleBMJ open2023
Exploring the views of low-acuity emergency department consulters on an educational intervention and general practitioner appointment service: a qualitative study in Berlin, Germany.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Emergency department visits as a potential opportunity to promote primary care attachment and modify utilization patterns - results of a pilot study in Berlin, Germany.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- "I do not know the advantages of having a general practitioner" - a qualitative study exploring the views of low-acuity emergency patients without a regular general practitioner toward primary care.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Public Beliefs About Accessibility and Quality of Emergency Departments in Germany.The western journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLow-acuity patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) frequently have unmet ambulatory care needs. This qualitative study explores the patients' views of an intervention aimed at education about care options and promoting primary care (PC) attachment.
designQualitative telephone interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants of an interventional pilot study, based on a semi-structured interview guide. The data were analysed through qualitative content analysis.
settingThe study was carried out in three EDs in the city centre of Berlin, Germany.
participantsThirty-two low-acuity ED consulters with no connection to a general practitioner (GP) who had participated in the pilot study were interviewed; (f/m: 15/17; mean age: 32.9 years).
interventionIn the pilot intervention, ED patients with low-acuity complaints were provided with an information leaflet on appropriate ED usage and alternative care paths and they were offered an optional GP appointment scheduling service. Qualitative interviews explored the views of a subsample of the participants on the intervention.
resultsInterviewees perceived both parts of the intervention as valuable. Receiving a leaflet about appropriate ED use and alternatives to the ED was viewed as helpful, with participants expressing the desire for additional online information and a wider distribution of the content. The GP appointment service was positively assessed by the participants who had made use of this offer and seen as potentially helpful in establishing a long-term connection to GP care. The majority of patients declining a scheduled GP appointment expected no personal need for further medical care in the near future or preferred to choose a GP independently.
conclusionsLow-acuity ED patients seem receptive to information on alternative acute care options and prevailingly appreciate measures to encourage and facilitate attachment to a GP. Promoting PC integration could contribute to a change in future usage behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023480.
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.