Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40397508›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Safety and Efficacy of Digital Check-in and Triage Kiosks in Emergency Departments: Systematic Review.

Elena Lammila-Escalera, Geva Greenfield, Reham Aldakhil, Hei Ming Mak, Himani Sehgal, Ana Luisa Neves, Mark J Harmon, Azeem Majeed, Benedict Hayhoe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elena Lammila-EscaleraGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6805-5241
Geva GreenfieldGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9779-2486
Reham AldakhilGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6975-3858
Hei Ming MakGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2025-2335
Himani SehgalSchool of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4561-6523
Ana Luisa NevesGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7107-7211
Mark J HarmonLewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9920-2626
Azeem MajeedDepartment for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-9858
Benedict HayhoeGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department for Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2645-6191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency departments (EDs) globally face unprecedented pressures due to aging populations, multimorbidity, and staff shortages. In response, health systems are adopting technological solutions such as digital kiosks to reduce wait times, improve patient flow, and alleviate overcrowding. These tools can automate patient check-in and assist with triage, helping to reduce variability in assessments and identify individuals with urgent needs sooner. However, it remains unclear whether the potential time-saving benefits of these innovations translate into improved patient outcomes and safety.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to summarize the safety and efficacy impacts of digital check-in and triage kiosks compared with traditional nurse-led triage methods in EDs.

methodsComprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. A narrative synthesis was carried out to evaluate the impact on patient safety (eg, agreement rate, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity) and efficacy (eg, operational efficiency and patient flow). The quality of the studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tools.

resultsA total of 5 studies, comprising 47,778 patients and 310,249 ED visits, were included. Out of these 5 studies, 3 focused on self-check-in kiosks, one on self-triage kiosks, and another on technology combining both. Among 5 studies, 2 evaluated safety, reporting high sensitivity for predicting high-acuity outcomes (up to 88.5%) and low under-triage rates (8.0%-10.1%) but poor agreement with nurse-assigned triage scores (27.0%-30.7%). Specificity for low-acuity cases was variable, with one study reporting as low as 27.2% accuracy. Of the 5 studies, 4 examined efficacy, reporting high over-triage rates (59.2%-65.0%) and mixed impacts on waiting times. While 2 studies found significant reductions in time-to-physician and time-to-triage, others reported no significant improvements following adjustments. Kiosks demonstrated high usability, with one study reporting 97% uptake among ED attendees.

conclusionsEvidence on the safety and efficacy of digital check-in and triage kiosks remains sparse. Based on the limited number of studies available, digital kiosks appear effective in accurately identifying high-acuity patients; however, their impact on operational efficiency measures is unclear. High over-triage rates and poor concordance with nurse-assigned triage scores may limit their practical application in busy ED settings. Further research is required to evaluate long-term outcomes, implementation across diverse health care contexts, and integration into ED workflows to better understand how digital kiosks can safely and effectively help address the growing demand for EDs.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024481506; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024481506. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084506.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalPatient SafetyTriageHumansemergency services, hospitalself-service kiosktriageurgent care

Identifiers

PMID40397508
PMCPMC12138304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.