ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023
Emergency department staff views of NHS 111 First: qualitative interview study in England.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telephone Triage for Medical Students: An Exploration Through Cultural Historical Activity Theory.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the performance of telephone triage service.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- eHealth Literacy and the Use of NHS 111 Online Urgent Care Service in England: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Descriptive analysis and evaluation of Health Link referrals to the emergency department before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Internal 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNHS 111 is a phone and online urgent care triage and assessment system that aims to reduce UK ED demand. In 2020, 111 First was introduced to triage patients before entry to the ED and to offer direct booking for patients needing ED or urgent care into same-day arrival time slots. 111 First continues to be used post pandemic, but concerns about patient safety, delays or inequities in accessing care have been voiced. This paper examines ED and urgent care centre (UCC) staff experiences of NHS 111 First.
methodSemistructured telephone interviews were conducted with ED/UCC practitioners across England between October 2020 and July 2021 as part of a larger multimethod study examining the impact of NHS 111 online. We purposively recruited from areas with high need/demand likely to be using NHS 111 services. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded inductively by the primary researcher. We coded all items to capture experiences of 111 First within the full project coding tree and from this constructed two explanatory themes which were refined by the wider research team.
resultsWe recruited 27 participants (10 nurses, 9 doctors and 8 administrator/managers) working in ED/UCCs serving areas with high deprivation and mixed sociodemographic profiles. Participants reported local triage/streaming systems predating 111 First continued to operate so that, despite prebooked arrival slots at the ED, all attendances were funnelled into a single queue. This was described by participants as a source of frustration for staff and patients. Interviewees perceived remote algorithm-based assessments as less robust than in-person assessments which drew on more nuanced clinical expertise. DISCUSSION: While remote preassessment of patients before they present at ED is attractive, existing triage and streaming systems based on acuity, and staff views about the superiority of clinical acumen, are likely to remain barriers to the effective use of 111 First as a demand management strategy.
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.