ArticleBMJ open2025
Reasons for emergency department use of low-acuity attender: results from the prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional EPICS-9/PiNo-Bund study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do interventions in primary care or in emergency departments impact less urgent patients' emergency care utilization? A systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- [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
- Identifying Avoidable Emergency Department Visits and the Potential Role of Community Health Centers in Northern Italy: A Retrospective Observational Study.Health care science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Nurse-Led Triage in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- [Cost and revenue analysis of inpatient and outpatient cases in emergency departments: potential for optimization and control?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- Follow-Up of Low-Acuity Patients After Redirection From a Swiss Emergency Department Using an Electronic Triage Application: Protocol for a Single-Center Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Observational
- [Utilisation of emergency departments: Is the emergency level relevant?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of low-acuity emergency department (ED) visits varies across Europe and is often posited as a contributing factor to ED crowding. Many health policy-makers and health professionals assume that these cases are 'avoidable' ED visits or could be referred to other ambulatory healthcare providers.
objectivesThis study examines the care-seeking behaviour and the reasoning behind patients with low-acuity ED attendance according to emergency triage. DESIGN AND
settingIn a prospective multicentre cross-sectional survey, patients were invited to participate in an anonymised, paper-based survey in the waiting areas of nine EDs in Germany (2018-2020). The survey included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, reasons for using the ED, previous consultations in the outpatient healthcare system, self-rated urgency and knowledge of other emergency care structures. Due to the variance of missing values in the different responses, the valid percentages are shown.
resultsOf the 2752 survey respondents, 41.1% (n=1 120) indicated that 'pain' was the primary complaint for their ED attendance. Self-rated urgency was 'less urgent' for 58.7% (n=1552), 'urgent' for 41.3% (n=1093) and 57.7% reported the first episode of their symptoms (n=1505), with 30.8% (n=830) with symptom onset on the same day. The majority of patients completed the survey on weekdays (94.6%) between 08:00 and 18:00 (82.2%). 80.1% stated that they had a general practitioner (GP) (n=2103) and 55.8% contacted their GP before attending the ED (n=1403). In 77.8% of patients with GP contact, a visit to the ED was recommended by practice members or the GP (n=1068). The on-call service of the statutory health insurance physicians (SHIP) was contacted by 7.0% (n=172); in 64.6% of these cases (n=115), an ED visit was recommended. Of all patients without contact to the SHIP on-call service, 60.6% stated that they were not aware of these services (n=848).
conclusionsPatients with low-acuity ED attendance stated acute onset and mainly new episodes of symptoms, with pain being the most common chief complaint. A high proportion reported having contacted their GP or SHIP on-call services (if known) but have been referred to the ED. As long as no fundamental changes are made to the provision of timely treatment options in the outpatient care sector, EDs may continue to be the foremost treatment option for these patients.
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.