ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2024
Reasons for encounters, diagnoses, and admission rate among emergency referrals at an urban primary care clinic in Japan: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reasons for encounters, diagnoses, and admission rate among emergency referrals at an urban primary care clinic in Japan: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of general and family 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive understanding of emergency referrals (EmR), encompassing reasons for encounters (RFEs) and diagnoses, is crucial for primary care physicians (PCPs). Comparing EmR rates and subsequent admission rates can potentially enhance the quality of primary care for EmR practice. However, no study has evaluated RFEs among patients with EmRs. This study aimed to identify RFE/diagnosis in relation to subsequent admission among patients receiving EmR. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an urban family physician teaching clinic in Kawasaki City, Japan. Our cohort recruited consecutive EmR episodes with their medical records and admissions confirmed through response letters from receiving hospitals. Using the 2nd edition of the International Classification of Primary Care, we explored the frequency of RFEs and diagnoses, calculating EmR rates and admission rates as primary outcomes. Bivariate analyses were employed to compare admission and non-admission cases. Results: The present study encompassed 162 EmR episodes out of 47,901 visits, yielding an EmR rate of 3.38/1000 visits. Among 153 completely followed episodes, 99 patients were emergently admitted, resulting in a 64.7% admission rate. The admission group exhibited significantly higher age and a greater prevalence of dementia. Descriptive analysis revealed fever and pneumonia as the most frequent RFE and diagnosis, respectively, with significant differences between admission and non-admission groups. Conclusions: The present study reports EmR and admission rates following EmR, highlighting differences in patient characteristics, RFEs, and diagnoses. The findings offer insights to enhance PCPs' EmR practices and serve as a benchmark for the scope of EmR practice.
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.