ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health1997
Emergency admission of patients to general surgical beds: attitudes of general practitioners, surgical trainees, and consultants in Liverpool, UK.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1997. 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.
- How Norwegian casualty clinics handle contacts related to mental illness: A prospective observational study.International journal of mental health systems · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine (a) whether doctors involved in the process of emergency surgical admission could agree about which patients should be admitted, (b) whether there were consistent differences between doctors in different specialty groups, and (c) whether these opinions were greatly influenced by non-clinical factors.
designIndependent assessment of summarised case histories by three "expert" clinicians (two consultant surgeons and one general practitioner (GP)), by a group of 10 GPs, and by a group of 10 junior and senior surgeons. Experts, but not other observers, scored admissions both independently and as a consensus group. Observers indicated for each patient whether they would admit, would not admit, or were unsure.
settingAn urban general hospital with teaching status. SUBJECTS: Fifty consecutive patients admitted to the general surgical unit as emergencies during 1995.
main outcome measuresProportion of admissions considered unnecessary or uncertain: agreement between observers on these proportions: effect of social and procedural factors on the admission decision.
resultsBetween 8 and 34% of admissions were considered unnecessary and 20-38% of unclear necessity. Agreement between the groups of clinicians was not good. GPs and consultant surgeons showed the poorest agreement (kappa = 0.08 to 0.25, 4 comparisons), and the GPs scored a higher percentage of admissions as unnecessary (34 v 8-12%). After discussion, the consensus group achieved good to very good agreement (kappa 0.61-0.84).
conclusionsDifferent groups of doctors vary widely in their views about the need for emergency surgical admission. Good agreement can be reached by consensus discussion. GPs are less likely than surgeons to consider emergency surgical admission necessary.
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.