ArticleCJEM2026
Implementing virtual urgent care services in emergency departments: a multi-site focus group study of adaptation and sustainability.
Article in CJEM, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Virtual Urgent Nova Scotia (VUNS) program was introduced to address emergency department (ED) overcrowding and improve access to urgent care through virtual health services. This study captures the perspectives, sentiment, and attitudes toward the implementation of VUNS from rural ED providers.
methodsVUNS staff from seven different sites across the province of Nova Scotia were invited to focus groups to explore the implementation of VUNS in their local context. Focus groups were facilitated by members of the Implementation Science Team at Nova Scotia Health from November 2024 to January 2025. Focus group transcripts were coded deductively, and results were presented in a narrative and descriptive fashion.
resultsKey findings highlight recurrent issues, including staff confusion over inclusion and exclusion criteria, inconsistent VUNS physician decision-making, workflow disruptions influenced by staffing shortages, and patient bounce-backs from the VUNS triage nurses or physician. While initial implementation demonstrated potential for reducing lower acuity patients' wait times and enhancing care delivery, operational challenges limited its effectiveness for some sites. Despite these barriers, success stories from specific sites emphasize the program's value, particularly in underserved rural areas. Recommendations for improvement focus on stabilizing criteria, enhancing staff training, optimizing workflows, and fostering consistent communication between stakeholders.
conclusionFindings indicate that VUNS should be scaled cautiously within current sites, addressing identified challenges before spreading to new locations. Lessons learned stress the importance of staff engagement, clear workflows, and patient education. These findings provide a roadmap for refining VUNS operations and contribute to the broader discourse on scaling digital healthcare innovations and streamlining patient flow in EDs.
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.