ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Frequent contacts to Emergency Medical Services (EMS): more than frequent callers.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparities between two possible thresholds for frequent contacts to a Norwegian emergency medical communication centre: ≥5 contacts in one month vs. ≥12 contacts in three months.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Frequent callers vs. frequent users - a scoping review of frequent contacts to the emergency medical services.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA frequent caller is defined by The Frequent Caller National Network (FreCaNN) as an adult who makes five or more emergency calls in a month or twelve or more in three months, related to individual episodes of care. However, we believe that when limiting the definition to those who call themselves, one underestimates the impact frequent contacts have on the Emergency Medical Communication Center (EMCC) and the Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
methodWe conducted a descriptive retrospective cross-sectional database review of frequent contacts; defined as persons who have ≥ 5 contacts in a month or ≥ 12 contacts in three months. Data were provided from Oslo EMCC, between 1. January 2017 and 31. December 2022. Contrary to the FreCaNN definition, we included all types of contacts and callers, both emergent and non-emergent, regarding patients of all ages.
resultsDuring the study period, 2.149.400 contacts were registered. Of these 129.700 were contacts from frequent callers, where the patients called themselves. When including contacts frequently made on behalf of a patient, we found that 268.723 fit the definition of frequent emergency contacts. When also taking non-emergent contacts into account, a total of 437.361 contacts fit the definition of frequent contacts.
conclusionWhen limiting the criteria to only frequent callers, one underestimates the impact persons who have frequent contacts, have on the EMCC and the EMS. We were able to distinguish between three categories-contacts from frequent callers, frequent emergency contacts, and frequent contacts. We believe broadening the definition can benefit both research and audits, when accessing the use of emergency resources to patients with frequent requests for help to the EMCCs.
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.