Evaluation of an Automated Decision Aid for the Further Referral of Emergency Room Patients—A Prospective Cohort Study.

IF 6.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anna Slagman, Anne Bremicker, Martin Möckel, Larissa Eienbröker, Antje Fischer-Rosinský, André Gries
{"title":"Evaluation of an Automated Decision Aid for the Further Referral of Emergency Room Patients—A Prospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Anna Slagman, Anne Bremicker, Martin Möckel, Larissa Eienbröker, Antje Fischer-Rosinský, André Gries","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Instruments for the initial evaluation of emergency room patients as an aid to their onward referral to ambulatory care structures are a matter of current interest. In this study, we assess the safety of the software application SmED-Kontakt+ for this purpose. SmED is an abbreviation for Strukuturierte Medizinische Ersteinschätzung Deutschland, \"structured initial medical evaluation in Germany.\"</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective cohort study, we compared the recommendations of SmED-Kontakt+ concerning the time and place of further care with those of the treating physicians. The subjects were adult patients who were able to walk and had presented themselves to the emergency room. Whenever SmED-Kontakt+ assessed the situation less critically than the physicians, and in 5% of the remaining cases, the potential endangerment of patient safety was assessed by an expert panel (expected value <1%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a total of 1840 cases, SmED-Kontakt+ agreed with the physicians' assessment in 353 (19%). The assessment of SmED-Kontakt+ was more critical in 1221 cases (66%) and less critical in 266 (15%; potential undertriage). There was potential endangerment in 49 cases (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [2.0; 3.5]). Potential endangerment was less common among patients in the more urgent recommendation categories [0.1; 2.6] and more common in the categories of a recommended outpatient physician visit or telephone consultation within or beyond 24 hours [2.4; 17.2].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SmED-Kontakt+ generally assessed these patients' needs for further care as more urgent than the treating physicians did. Nevertheless, the percentage of potentially endangered patients was higher than expected. We conclude that further care should be provided in timely fashion with an obligatory appointment. The sites of further ambulatory care should be immediately accessible and properly equipped. Patients should not be referred for further care at later times on the basis of an SmED-Kontakt+ assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":11258,"journal":{"name":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","volume":" Forthcoming","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0191","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Instruments for the initial evaluation of emergency room patients as an aid to their onward referral to ambulatory care structures are a matter of current interest. In this study, we assess the safety of the software application SmED-Kontakt+ for this purpose. SmED is an abbreviation for Strukuturierte Medizinische Ersteinschätzung Deutschland, "structured initial medical evaluation in Germany."

Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we compared the recommendations of SmED-Kontakt+ concerning the time and place of further care with those of the treating physicians. The subjects were adult patients who were able to walk and had presented themselves to the emergency room. Whenever SmED-Kontakt+ assessed the situation less critically than the physicians, and in 5% of the remaining cases, the potential endangerment of patient safety was assessed by an expert panel (expected value <1%).

Results: In a total of 1840 cases, SmED-Kontakt+ agreed with the physicians' assessment in 353 (19%). The assessment of SmED-Kontakt+ was more critical in 1221 cases (66%) and less critical in 266 (15%; potential undertriage). There was potential endangerment in 49 cases (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [2.0; 3.5]). Potential endangerment was less common among patients in the more urgent recommendation categories [0.1; 2.6] and more common in the categories of a recommended outpatient physician visit or telephone consultation within or beyond 24 hours [2.4; 17.2].

Conclusion: SmED-Kontakt+ generally assessed these patients' needs for further care as more urgent than the treating physicians did. Nevertheless, the percentage of potentially endangered patients was higher than expected. We conclude that further care should be provided in timely fashion with an obligatory appointment. The sites of further ambulatory care should be immediately accessible and properly equipped. Patients should not be referred for further care at later times on the basis of an SmED-Kontakt+ assessment.

评估急诊室患者进一步转诊的自动决策辅助工具:前瞻性队列研究
背景:对急诊室病人进行初步评估,以帮助他们转诊到非住院治疗机构,是目前人们关注的问题。在这项研究中,我们对 SmED-Kontakt+ 应用软件的安全性进行了评估。SmED 是 Strukuturierte Medizinische Ersteinschätzung Deutschland("德国结构化初步医疗评估")的缩写:在这项前瞻性队列研究中,我们将 SmED-Kontakt+ 就进一步治疗的时间和地点提出的建议与主治医生的建议进行了比较。研究对象是能够行走并到急诊室就诊的成年患者。无论何时,SmED-Kontakt+ 对情况的评估都不如医生严谨,在其余 5%的病例中,患者安全的潜在危险由专家小组进行评估(预期值 结果):在总共 1840 个病例中,SmED-Kontakt+ 与医生评估一致的病例有 353 个(19%)。在 1221 个病例(66%)中,SmED-Kontakt+ 的评估较为关键,在 266 个病例(15%;潜在误诊)中,SmED-Kontakt+ 的评估较为次要。有 49 例(2.7%;95% 置信区间 [2.0;3.5])存在潜在危险。在较紧急的建议类别中,潜在危害在患者中较少见 [0.1; 2.6],而在建议门诊就诊或 24 小时内或 24 小时后电话咨询的类别中较常见 [2.4; 17.2]:SmED-Kontakt+对这些患者进一步治疗需求的评估通常比主治医生更为紧迫。然而,潜在危险患者的比例高于预期。我们的结论是,应通过强制预约及时提供进一步治疗。进一步的非住院治疗地点应交通便利,设备齐全。不应根据 SmED-Kontakt+ 评估结果,将患者转诊到其他医院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Deutsches Arzteblatt international
Deutsches Arzteblatt international 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Deutsches Ärzteblatt International is a bilingual (German and English) weekly online journal that focuses on clinical medicine and public health. It serves as the official publication for both the German Medical Association and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. The journal is dedicated to publishing independent, peer-reviewed articles that cover a wide range of clinical medicine disciplines. It also features editorials and a dedicated section for scientific discussion, known as correspondence. The journal aims to provide valuable medical information to its international readership and offers insights into the German medical landscape. Since its launch in January 2008, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International has been recognized and included in several prestigious databases, which helps to ensure its content is accessible and credible to the global medical community. These databases include: Carelit CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Compendex DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database) EMNursing GEOBASE (Geoscience & Environmental Data) HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) Index Copernicus Medline (MEDLARS Online) Medpilot PsycINFO (Psychological Information Database) Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus By being indexed in these databases, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International's articles are made available to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare professionals worldwide, contributing to the global exchange of medical knowledge and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信