Impact of same day emergency care services on urgent and emergency care delivery outcomes: a systematic review.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Katherine Jones, Christopher Carroll, Steve Goodacre, Carl Marincowitz, Anthea Sutton, Anastasios Bastounis, Andrew Booth
{"title":"Impact of same day emergency care services on urgent and emergency care delivery outcomes: a systematic review.","authors":"Katherine Jones, Christopher Carroll, Steve Goodacre, Carl Marincowitz, Anthea Sutton, Anastasios Bastounis, Andrew Booth","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-214821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Same day emergency care (SDEC) describes an ambulatory service designed to provide an alternative to ED management, reduce admission rates and improve emergency care system performance. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence base for SDEC and its impact on urgent and emergency healthcare delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight bibliographic databases were searched, including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, the Science and Social Science Citation Indices in the Web of Science Core Collection, Health Management Information Consortium, the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos. Study selection, extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Given the clinical heterogeneity and weakness of the evidence base to determine intervention effect, a narrative synthesis was performed. Formal assessment of implementation was undertaken using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 1283 citations, with 21 publications reporting 20 evaluations (18 UK and 2 Australia). SDEC services were heterogeneous in terms of referral sources, patient selection and specialties provided. Studies were mostly single centre and compared SDEC care with alternative services (such as ED) or compared outcomes before and during SDEC implementation. Patients receiving SDEC demonstrated same-day discharge ranging from 38.3% to >92%. 30-day mortality varied between <1% and 6% (four studies). Change in 30-day ED or SDEC reattendance was not examined. A learning curve was indicated in two studies, with inappropriate or 'rejected' referrals reducing from 31% to 18% in one SDEC service. Where reported, triage was led by senior clinical decision-makers, however, the appropriateness of SDEC referrals was also complicated by contextual factors. Comparative evaluation, including inpatient admissions, generally favoured SDEC care, but study designs carried a high risk of bias and confounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Limited evidence suggests that implementing SDEC services is feasible and may increase same-day discharge but with variable 30-day mortality (very-low or low confidence) and unexamined change in 30-day ED or SDEC reattendance. Clinical heterogeneity and limited reporting make it difficult to characterise SDEC services. Implementation, although with varied referral criteria, proved feasible given the involvement of senior clinical decision-makers.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"643-651"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214821","RegionNum":3,"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

Introduction: Same day emergency care (SDEC) describes an ambulatory service designed to provide an alternative to ED management, reduce admission rates and improve emergency care system performance. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise the evidence base for SDEC and its impact on urgent and emergency healthcare delivery.

Methods: Eight bibliographic databases were searched, including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, the Science and Social Science Citation Indices in the Web of Science Core Collection, Health Management Information Consortium, the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos. Study selection, extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Given the clinical heterogeneity and weakness of the evidence base to determine intervention effect, a narrative synthesis was performed. Formal assessment of implementation was undertaken using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set.

Results: We identified 1283 citations, with 21 publications reporting 20 evaluations (18 UK and 2 Australia). SDEC services were heterogeneous in terms of referral sources, patient selection and specialties provided. Studies were mostly single centre and compared SDEC care with alternative services (such as ED) or compared outcomes before and during SDEC implementation. Patients receiving SDEC demonstrated same-day discharge ranging from 38.3% to >92%. 30-day mortality varied between <1% and 6% (four studies). Change in 30-day ED or SDEC reattendance was not examined. A learning curve was indicated in two studies, with inappropriate or 'rejected' referrals reducing from 31% to 18% in one SDEC service. Where reported, triage was led by senior clinical decision-makers, however, the appropriateness of SDEC referrals was also complicated by contextual factors. Comparative evaluation, including inpatient admissions, generally favoured SDEC care, but study designs carried a high risk of bias and confounding.

Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that implementing SDEC services is feasible and may increase same-day discharge but with variable 30-day mortality (very-low or low confidence) and unexamined change in 30-day ED or SDEC reattendance. Clinical heterogeneity and limited reporting make it difficult to characterise SDEC services. Implementation, although with varied referral criteria, proved feasible given the involvement of senior clinical decision-makers.

当日紧急护理服务对紧急和紧急护理交付结果的影响:系统回顾。
简介:当日紧急护理(SDEC)描述了一种门诊服务,旨在提供一种替代急诊科管理的方法,降低住院率,提高紧急护理系统的性能。本系统综述旨在识别和综合SDEC的证据基础及其对紧急医疗保健服务的影响。方法:检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycInfo、CINAHL、Web of Science核心馆藏科学与社会科学引文索引、健康管理信息联盟、Cochrane Library和Epistemonikos等8个文献数据库。研究选择、提取和质量评估由两名审稿人独立进行。考虑到临床异质性和确定干预效果的证据基础薄弱,我们进行了叙述综合。使用质量改进最低质量标准集对实施情况进行了正式评估。结果:我们确定了1283条引用,其中21篇出版物报告了20个评价(18个英国和2个澳大利亚)。SDEC服务在转诊来源、患者选择和专科提供方面存在异质性。研究大多是单中心的,将SDEC护理与其他服务(如ED)进行比较,或比较SDEC实施前和实施期间的结果。接受SDEC的患者当天出院率从38.3%到bbb92%不等。结论:有限的证据表明,实施SDEC服务是可行的,可能会增加当日出院,但30天死亡率不同(非常低或低置信度),30天ED或SDEC复诊的变化未经调查。临床异质性和有限的报告使得SDEC服务的特征难以确定。实施,虽然有不同的转诊标准,证明是可行的参与高级临床决策者。
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
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信