ReviewHealth services insights2025
The Use of Clinical Pathways in Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review.
Review in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The intent is good but… exploring barriers and enablers to clinical pathway use in regional Australian Emergency Departments.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Article
- Barriers to Protocol Adherence in Emergency Departments and Evidence-Based Strategies for Successful Implementation: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Co-Designing a Care Pathway for Healthcare Professionals to Recognise and Respond to Human Trafficking Victims in Emergency Departments.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Acute Suspected Stroke Clinical Pathway Use in Tasmanian Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Study.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Observational
- Fractured Neck of Femur Clinical Pathway Use in Tasmanian Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Study.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical pathways (CPWs) are evidence-based, standardised, clinical management plans that are designed to deliver a sequence of clinical interventions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. The aim of this study was to identify and summarise the current available evidence on the use of CPWs in emergency departments (EDs). Study design: A literature search was conducted in Scopus, Embase, Emcare, and PubMed academic databases. The search strategy was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and results reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Studies were included if they reported empirical data either qualitatively or quantitatively, studied the use of CPW practices, and reported on the use of at least one CPW activity. Results: Sixty-four articles were eligible for the scoping review. Variation and quality of treatment, resource utilisation and time to treatment were identified as the three main patient and organisational outcomes from the use of CPWs. Three main categories of barriers to use were identified: Organisational environment factors, Healthcare professional-related factors, and CPW operational issues. Conclusions: CPW implementation has wide positive patient and organisational outcomes in the ED. Whilst no single strategy would result in implementing CPWs in the ED settings successfully, broad engagement with clinicians of all disciplines who use the pathways and involvement of multidisciplinary teams in implementation is vital to increase visibility of the CPW.
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.