Observational studyBMJ open2024
Frequency, demographics, diagnoses and consultation patterns associated with low-acuity attendances in German emergency departments: a retrospective routine healthcare data analysis from the INDEED project.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- [Efficiency of streaming and integrated care models for low acuity patients in acute and emergency care-results from a prospective cohort study].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- [Cost and revenue analysis of inpatient and outpatient cases in emergency departments: potential for optimization and control?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- [Artificial intelligence in fracture diagnostics : Potentials and challenges in the clinical practice].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Utilization of acute medical services in general practice: a retrospective routine data analysis.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvidence suggests interventions targeting low-acuity attendances have been hampered by insufficient characterisation of potential target groups. This study aimed to estimate the frequency of low-acuity emergency department (ED) attendances and to provide an overview of their demographic, diagnosis and consultation patterns.
designObservational analyses of routine healthcare data.
settingGerman EDs.
participantsAdult patients with statutory health insurance who visited the ED of 16 participating hospitals in 2016.
main outcome measuresFrequency, demographics, diagnoses and consultation patterns of low-acuity and high-acuity attendees. MAIN
resultsOf the 454 747 ED visits, 370 756 visits (50.1% female) were included for analysis. Four participating hospitals had to be excluded due to the lack of data that were necessary for the stepwise approach to define low and high acuity. We identified 101 337 visits as low acuity (27.3%) and 256 876 as high acuity (69.3%), whereas 12 543 (3.4%) could not be classified. The proportion of attendees classified as low acuity decreased with age (highest at 40.6% in the age group <35 years). The proportion of women and men was 50% in both acuity categories, respectively (50 654 of all low-acuity and 128 427 of all high-acuity contacts). The highest proportion of low-acuity presentations was observed during the weekend (average of 18.6% per day), compared with an average of 12.5% on weekdays. The most common diagnoses (back pain, abdominal and pelvic pain) were similar in both low-acuity and high-acuity groups.
conclusionOur study provides further evidence that younger age is associated with low-acuity presentation in German EDs. Age-specific intervention strategies are needed to ease the burden on urgent care facilities. The similar spectrum of diagnoses between low-acuity and high-acuity patients suggests a so far under-recognised higher importance of severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00022969.
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.