Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37876604›Full record

ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2023

Intensive care unit admission from the emergency department in the setting of National Emergency Access Targets.

Jack D'Arcy, Suzanne Doherty, Luke Fletcher, Ary Serpa Neto, Daryl Jones

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jack D'ArcyAustin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Suzanne DohertyAustin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Luke FletcherAustin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Ary Serpa NetoAustin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Daryl JonesAustin Health, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Since the introduction of National Emergency Access Targets (NEATs) in 2012 there has been little research examining patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).We assessed differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted from the Emergency Department (ED) to the ICU within 4 hours compared with patients who were not. Methods: This retrospective observational study included all adults (≥18 years old) admitted to the ICU from the ED of Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, between 1 January 2017 and 31st December 2019 inclusive. Results: 1544 patients were admitted from the ED to the ICU and 65% had an ED length of stay (EDLOS) > 4 hour. Such patients were more likely to be older, female, with less urgent triage category scores and lower illness severity. Sepsis and respiratory admission diagnoses, and winter presentations were significantly more prevalent in this group.After adjustment for confounders, patients with an EDLOS > 4 hours had lower hospital mortality; 8% v 21% (p = 0.029; OR, 1.62), shorter ICU length of stay 2.2 v 2.4 days (p = 0.043), but a longer hospital length of stay 6.2 v 6.8 days (p = < 0.001). Conclusion: Almost two thirds of patients breached the NEAT of 4 hours. These patients were more likely to be older, female, admitted in winter with sepsis and respiratory diagnoses, and have lower illness severity and less urgent triage categories. NEAT breach was associated with reduced hospital mortality but an increased hospital length of stay.

Indexed as

Access blockAdmissionEmergency department (ED)Intensive care unit (ICU)Length of stayNEAT

Identifiers

PMID37876604
PMCPMC10581270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.