ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025
Operational Impact of Redirection From the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Matched Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrograms redirecting patients with non-urgent presentations from Emergency Departments (EDs) to the community (ED2C), by providing them a booked community appointment in lieu of waiting for ED care, may reduce ED crowding. We sought to evaluate the department- and patient-level impact of an ED2C program in an urban tertiary pediatric ED.
methodsWe conducted a matched cross-sectional study to describe patients redirected by a pediatric ED2C program and determine if the program changed ED operations. Days with the program were matched on day type (weekday vs. weekend) and department volume (±10%) to days when ED patients were not being redirected. Measures of ED flow and utilization on days with and without the program were compared using t-tests and linear regression models.
resultsOf the 6164 patients eligible for the ED2C program for 53 days that redirection was offered, 900 were redirected (14.6%). On average, 17.7 (SD 8.5) patients were redirected and 92.4 (SD 23.7) eligible patients were not redirected each day the ED2C was in operation. Patients who were redirected had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) than those who were eligible but not redirected (2.9 ± 2.0 h vs. 8.5 ± 4.3 h, p-value < 0.0001). Three patients who were redirected (0.3%) and 11 eligible but not redirected (0.2%) returned to the ED and were hospitalized. Average median departmental LOS, time to physician assessment, daily proportion hospitalized patients, proportion of patients left without being seen, and ED return visits did not differ on days with and without the program.
conclusionsA small proportion of eligible patients were redirected. These patients experienced a lower LOS, without increasing the proportion of return visits. ED operations were unchanged. Refining eligibility criteria for pediatric redirection with an emphasis on patient safety is necessary.
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.