ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Multidisciplinary clinician perspectives on avoidable emergency department use by patients during cancer treatment.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. 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.
- Clinician validation of the Medicare measure for potentially avoidable hospital visits after chemotherapies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Dissonance in the Sole Quality Measure for Outpatient Chemotherapy, OP-35.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe literature reports patient perspectives on emergency department (ED) use during cancer treatment. Despite provider and policy interest in reducing ED visits for these adult patients, there are no reports of clinician perspectives on ED care.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study of semi-structured clinician interviews from 2018 to 2022. We interviewed nine ED and 12 safety-net oncology clinicians from the University of Texas Southwestern and its academically affiliated but clinically distinct safety-net-Parkland Health. We investigated perspectives on acute care needs and ED overuse, analyzed with the constant comparative method.
resultsED physicians had varying definitions of ED overuse but did not consider visits for pain, nausea/vomiting to qualify. Instead, there was concern for ED visits by patients near the end of life and who were unlikely to meaningfully benefit from hospital care. ED physicians exclusively relied on the oncology consult team for advice (staffed in part by oncology physician trainees), were unsure how to reach outpatient oncologists, and were unaware of an oncology urgent care clinic at their health system. Oncology physician trainees reported no formal training on triaging acute complaints, and variable familiarity with oncology urgent care. Oncology clinicians also did not view patients as overusing the ED, even for conditions due to chemotherapy effects.
conclusionWe captured under-recognized facets of acute care delivery, especially limited contact between two important teams-emergency medicine and oncology. Contrary to policy perspectives, ED and oncology clinicians did not consider visits for chemotherapy complications to represent ED overuse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40266398What 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.