ArticleCureus2025
Navigating the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study on Resident Doctors' Insights Into an Electronic Emergency Department Handbook.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Resident doctors entering Emergency Medicine (EM) face heavy workloads, rapid decision-making demands, and variable access to local protocols. While electronic handbooks show promise in other specialties, evidence from emergency departments (EDs) in the United Kingdom is limited. This study evaluated an electronic ED handbook's impact on confidence and knowledge among new ED doctors at a District General Hospital. Methods Using an interpretivist qualitative design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled 15 resident doctors (Foundation Year 2 (FY2), clinical fellows, general practitioner (GP)/EM trainees), all of whom had used the handbook during induction at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn (QEHKL), United Kingdom. Interviews (~20 minutes) were conducted by an EM registrar with training in quality improvement and research. These interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and pseudonymised, and then analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach. Results Six themes emerged: (i) Orientation and Transition Support - reduced induction overload and clarified expectations, (ii) Rapid Access to Local Protocols and Referral Pathways - single-point access to SDEC, stroke, urology and paediatric pathways, (iii) Decision-Making, Safety and Confidence - bedside guidance for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), head injury, venous thromboembolism (VTE)/deep vein thrombosis (DVT), burns and paediatrics, (iv) Efficiency and Workflow - less time searching intranet, smoother external referrals, (v) Usability and Accessibility - intuitive hyperlinks and mobile use, and (vi) Information Reliability and Maintenance - need for timely updates, fixing broken links and governance. Confidence gains were most pronounced among international medical graduates. All participants recommended the handbook for future cohorts. Conclusion The electronic ED handbook appeared to support resident doctors during their transition into EM by enhancing confidence, preparedness, and workflow efficiency. These findings offer useful exploratory insight into how a locally tailored digital tool can assist clinicians early in their ED placement. However, as a qualitative study conducted in a single centre, the results reflect participant perceptions rather than objective outcomes. Future multi-centre or mixed-methods research would be valuable to examine broader applicability and assess measurable effects on practice and patient care.
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.