ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary "Case Management" Approaches to the Management of Patients Who Make High Use of the Emergency Ambulance Service: A Quasi-experimental Evaluation Using Linked Routine Records.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A minority of people make high use of emergency ambulance services. Some UK ambulance services have deployed multidisciplinary case management for these patients. This approach extends usual (within-service) care provision to include input from other agencies such as social care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of case management compared with usual care. Methods: Natural experiment retrospective cohort study with patients from 4 UK ambulance services. We accessed anonymized electronic health records for patient cohorts identified by ambulance services. We compared patient-level outcomes based on mortality and emergency health contacts within 6 months of patient eligibility for case management. Cohorts were compared using logistic regression models, adjusting for ambulance service, patient characteristics, and service use in the 6 months before patients became eligible. Results: We found no differences between case management (intervention; n = 550) and usual care (control; n = 633) cohorts for our primary outcome, defined as death or any emergency health contact within 6 months. Nearly all patients recorded at least 1 such contact: 526 of 550 (95.6%) in the intervention cohort, compared with 601 of 633 (94.9%) in the control (adjusted odds ratio 1.159; 95% CI, 0.595-2.255). Mortality at 6 months was high: 58 of 550 (10.5%) in the intervention cohort and 89 of 633 (14.1%) in the control cohort. Conclusion: We found no evidence for the clinical effectiveness of multidisciplinary case management over within-service usual care. Study patients had a high risk of death within 6 months of eligibility for case management, and almost all made at least 1 recorded emergency health contact in that period.
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.