ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Phlebotomists on Emergency Department Performance: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmergency departments (ED) in Australia have experienced an increase in patient presentations. To address this demand, we introduced phlebotomists at ED triage seeking to reduce ED waiting and disposition times. We report the impact of this intervention.
methodUsing a quantitative retrospective comparative study design guided by the STROBE checklist, we investigated the impact on ED performance before and after the introduction of phlebotomists (the intervention). Data from two periods-T1 (January-June 2021) and T2 (January-June 2023) were obtained and analysed for all ED presentations.
resultsA total of 90,020 patients were included (T1: 46,639; T2: 43,381). Post-intervention improvements included an increase in short stay unit-admissions from triage (3.1% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001) and a decrease in the proportion of patients transferred to a cubicle from the waiting room (T1: 78.8%; T2: 76.4%). However, patients who left the ED before treatment was completed (known as 'Did not Wait') rose significantly (9.8% vs. 11.5%) as did waiting room times (80.02 vs. 112.91 min). Overall, ED length of stay (EDLOS) increased significantly (mean T1: 305.1 to T2: 319.4 min; p < 0.001). There were significant increases in blood tests (T1: 52.0% vs. T2: 59.9%) and ECGs (16.5% vs. 19.1%) performed.
conclusionThe introduction of phlebotomists at triage failed to reduce waiting, treatment and disposition times and increased the number of investigations performed with an overall increase in EDLOS. We observed an increase in the number of patients directed from the waiting room to the short stay unit and fewer patients transferred from the waiting room to an ED cubicle.
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.