ArticlePrimary health care research & development2025
Service evaluation of 'GP at Door' of accident and emergency services in Eastern England.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimWe describe activity, outcomes, and benefits after streaming low urgency attenders to
backgroundMany attendances to A&Es are for non-urgent health problems that could be better met by primary care rather than urgent care clinicians. It is valuable to monitor service activity, outcomes, service user demographics, and potential benefits when primary care is co-located with A&E departments.
methodsAs a service evaluation, we describe and analyse GDAE users, reasons for presentation, wait times, outcomes, and co-located A&E wait times at two hospitals in eastern England. Distributions of outcomes, wait times, reasons for attendance, deprivation, and age groups were compared for GDAE and usual A&E attenders at each site using Pearson chi-square tests and accelerated time failure modelling. Performance in a four-hour key performance indicator was descriptively compared for co-located and similar emergency departments.
findingsEach GDAE saw about 1025 patients per month. Wait times for usual accident and emergency (A&E) care are relatively short at only one site. Reattendances were common (about 11% of unique patients), 75% of GDAE attenders were seen within 1 hour of arrival, 7% of patients initially allocated to GDAE were referred back to A&E for further investigations, and 59% of GDAE patients were treated and discharged with no further treatment or referral required. Pain, injury, infection, or feeling generally unwell each comprised > 10% of primary reasons for attendance. At James Paget University Hospital, 4.3%, and at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 16.1% of GDAE attendances led to referral to specialist health services. GDAE attenders were younger and more socially deprived than attenders to co-located A&Es. Patients were seen quickly at both GDAE sites, but there were differences in counts of specialist referrals and wait times. Process evaluation could illuminate reasons for differences between study sites.
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.