SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Outcome metrics in recommended performance measurement tools for emergency department performance evaluation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no established protocol for measuring the overall performance of an emergency department (ED). This study sought to evaluate in terms of outcome measures the existing measurement tools created for ED use.
designA comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search was performed in databases of Medline and Scopus using the following eligibility criteria: (1) article context is the hospital ED; (2) the purpose is to develop or use a measurement tool concerning either quality or value; (3) the measurement tool evaluates the overall ED performance; (4) the measurement tool consists of more than two single performance indicators; and (5) the article is published in English. MAIN
resultsFifteen unique articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The Delphi method was the most popular method for identifying the recommended performance indicators for ED use. Ten articles defined outcome metrics as a separate category of indicators. The indicators perceived as outcome metrics differed widely among the studies. The outcome metrics recommended can be divided into the following five dimensions: reattendances, mortality, diagnostic and procedural errors and complications, diagnosis-specific survival rates, and patient experience. Forty-six single outcome metrics were identified. Reattendances were the most frequently recommended outcome metrics, with 20 single indicators falling into this category.
conclusionsThe lack of consensus on applicable outcome metrics makes it difficult to evaluate ED performance reliably. This study highlights the need to define and classify more specifically suitable outcome metrics for ED use to justify improvement actions and investigate the effect of healthcare reforms on ED operations. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023470855.
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.