Emergency department interventions and their effect on subsequent healthcare resource use after discharge: an overview of systematic reviews.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Tom Roberts, Callum Taylor, Edward Carlton, Mathew Booker, Sarah Voss, Nicola Trevett, Daniel Wattley, Jonathan Benger
{"title":"Emergency department interventions and their effect on subsequent healthcare resource use after discharge: an overview of systematic reviews.","authors":"Tom Roberts, Callum Taylor, Edward Carlton, Mathew Booker, Sarah Voss, Nicola Trevett, Daniel Wattley, Jonathan Benger","doi":"10.1186/s13049-025-01377-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the worldwide pressures on Emergency Departments (EDs), there is a focus on ED interventions to alleviate pressure. Ensuring interventions do not inadvertently impact upon other healthcare sectors is an important outcome. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to evaluate the impact of ED based interventions on subsequent healthcare resource use after ED discharge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An overview of systematic reviews was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration. Search criteria were devised using the PRESS standard and duplicate screening and extraction conducted for one third of systematic reviews. A primary study matrix was designed to reduce the impact of duplicate primary studies. Data was extracted in the form presented in the underlying review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removal of overlapping primary studies, 38 systematic reviews and 213 primary studies were included. Overall confidence in the reviews was high in 12, moderate in seven, low in nine and critically low in 10 reviews. In the 38 reviews, 30 different intervention-population-resource use combinations were analysed. ED based interventions decreased subsequent healthcare resource use in 23.3% (n = 7/30) of the intervention-population-resource use combinations and had no effect in 40% (n = 12/30). The most common resource use reported was ED Revisit. The most common follow-up length from ED discharge was 12 months (n = 52/216), followed by the combined group of one month (n = 44/216).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ED based interventions decrease subsequent healthcare resource use in a fifth of population-intervention-resource use combinations. Future research should produce a standardised set of outcome measures for subsequent healthcare resource use.</p>","PeriodicalId":49292,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","volume":"33 1","pages":"76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12044817/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation & Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01377-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Due to the worldwide pressures on Emergency Departments (EDs), there is a focus on ED interventions to alleviate pressure. Ensuring interventions do not inadvertently impact upon other healthcare sectors is an important outcome. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to evaluate the impact of ED based interventions on subsequent healthcare resource use after ED discharge.

Methods: An overview of systematic reviews was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration. Search criteria were devised using the PRESS standard and duplicate screening and extraction conducted for one third of systematic reviews. A primary study matrix was designed to reduce the impact of duplicate primary studies. Data was extracted in the form presented in the underlying review.

Results: After removal of overlapping primary studies, 38 systematic reviews and 213 primary studies were included. Overall confidence in the reviews was high in 12, moderate in seven, low in nine and critically low in 10 reviews. In the 38 reviews, 30 different intervention-population-resource use combinations were analysed. ED based interventions decreased subsequent healthcare resource use in 23.3% (n = 7/30) of the intervention-population-resource use combinations and had no effect in 40% (n = 12/30). The most common resource use reported was ED Revisit. The most common follow-up length from ED discharge was 12 months (n = 52/216), followed by the combined group of one month (n = 44/216).

Conclusions: ED based interventions decrease subsequent healthcare resource use in a fifth of population-intervention-resource use combinations. Future research should produce a standardised set of outcome measures for subsequent healthcare resource use.

急诊科干预措施及其对出院后后续医疗资源使用的影响:系统综述。
背景:由于全世界对急诊科(ED)的压力,有一个重点是ED干预,以减轻压力。确保干预措施不会无意中影响到其他卫生保健部门是一项重要成果。本综述旨在评估基于ED的干预措施对ED出院后后续医疗资源使用的影响。方法:根据Cochrane协作网进行系统综述。使用PRESS标准设计搜索标准,并对三分之一的系统评价进行重复筛选和提取。设计了一个初步研究矩阵,以减少重复的初步研究的影响。数据以基础审查中提出的形式提取。结果:剔除重叠的初步研究后,纳入了38项系统评价和213项初步研究。对评论的总体信心有12个是高的,7个是中等的,9个是低的,10个是极低的。在38篇综述中,分析了30种不同的干预-人口-资源使用组合。基于ED的干预减少了23.3% (n = 7/30)的干预-人口-资源使用组合的后续医疗资源使用,40% (n = 12/30)没有影响。最常见的资源使用报告是ED重访。ED出院后最常见的随访时间为12个月(n = 52/216),其次是联合组1个月(n = 44/216)。结论:在五分之一的人口-干预-资源使用组合中,基于ED的干预减少了随后的医疗资源使用。未来的研究应该为后续的医疗资源使用提供一套标准化的结果测量。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The primary topics of interest in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine (SJTREM) are the pre-hospital and early in-hospital diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of emergency medicine, trauma, and resuscitation. Contributions focusing on dispatch, major incidents, etiology, pathophysiology, rehabilitation, epidemiology, prevention, education, training, implementation, work environment, as well as ethical and socio-economic aspects may also be assessed for publication.
×
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