ArticleCJEM2026
Perceptions and attitudes of emergency department physicians, nurses and managers regarding the redirection of low-acuity patients from triage to other care alternatives: a pan-Canadian survey.
Article in CJEM, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe evaluated how emergency department (ED) staff perceives the practice known as redirection, whereby triage nurses guide low-acuity patients to alternative care settings without evaluation by a physician. Our aim was to evaluate its use across Canada and to identify its key drivers and barriers to its implementation.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ED physicians, nurses and managers from September to December 2023. The survey tool was developed in French and English following a modified Dillman's tailored design method, including: (1) literature review to identify key themes on redirection; (2) semi-structured interviews with experts on redirection; (3) the development of a tool prototype; (4) scientific and linguistic revisions; and (5) pre-testing. The survey was distributed through the mailing list of the Canadian emergency medicine and nursing associations.
resultsOf the 719 respondents recruited, 47.0% were nurses, 44.2% were physicians and 5% were managers. The overall response rate was 10.2%. Most respondents endorsed redirection as safe, with this endorsement ranging from 75.5% in Ontario to 94.3% in Manitoba. Similarly, the view that first-line physicians can adequately manage redirected patients was supported by most respondents, with proportions ranging from 78.1% in Ontario to 92.1% in Québec. Redirection strategies reported by the majority of respondents were based on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (65.2%). Insufficient opening hours of clinics (87.2%) and those with a CTAS score of 3 (62.7%) were identified as the main challenges. Professionals most suggested to receive redirected patients were family physicians (90.9%), nurse practitioners (86.4%), dentists (83.8%), social workers (71.9%), pharmacists (63.9%), and physiotherapists (58.0%).
conclusionsIn this pan-Canadian survey of ED personnel, the majority of respondents expressed support for redirecting low-acuity patients. These findings indicate an opportunity for further research on the development of redirection tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41351655What 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.