Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2026
Fast-track and primary care in the emergency department: managing more, but not decongesting.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fast-track and primary care in the emergency department: managing more, but not decongesting.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Factors influencing emergency department utilisation using Andersen's behavioural model: a cross-sectional study in a public hospital in Malaysia.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Intermediate care units: an effective alternative to reduce intensive care unit admissions-a prospective cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, emergency departments (EDs) have been facing increasing overcrowding, largely driven by a rise in non-urgent visits. To alleviate this pressure, many healthcare systems have introduced alternative care pathways, such as fast-track services and integrated primary care clinics, designed to optimize the management of low-acuity patients. However, the effectiveness of these pathways on ED workload remains debated. We conducted a retrospective observational study at the ED of Bolzano General Hospital between November 2022 and December 2024. Non-urgent patients (triaged as blue or green) were classified into three categories: those treated via fast-track services, primary care clinics, or within the ED itself. Monthly trends were analyzed using linear and Poisson regression models. Over the study period, 209,904 ED visits were recorded, with 80% classified as non-urgent. Utilization of alternative pathways increased over time (fast-track: + 13.6/month; primary care: + 22.3/month), as did the number of non-urgent cases managed within the ED (+ 26.4/month). Poisson regressions analyses revealed statistically significant upward trends across all groups. The implementation of alternative care pathways did not alleviate the overall ED workload but was associated with a general increase in non-urgent visits. These findings underscore the need for a coordinated healthcare strategy that simultaneously enhances ED capacity and reinforces community-based care to more sustainably manage demand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41129020What 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.