Condition-Specific Protocols Used in the Emergency Department Observation Unit: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Kian D Samadian, Andrew D Luo, Malia Pollock, Henry Chen, Joshua J Baugh, Carl T Berdahl, Melissa A Meeker, David A Meguerdichian, Christopher W Baugh
{"title":"Condition-Specific Protocols Used in the Emergency Department Observation Unit: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Kian D Samadian, Andrew D Luo, Malia Pollock, Henry Chen, Joshua J Baugh, Carl T Berdahl, Melissa A Meeker, David A Meguerdichian, Christopher W Baugh","doi":"10.1016/j.acepjo.2026.100425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency Department Observation Units (EDOUs) provide time-limited care for patients not clearly requiring inpatient admission. Despite widespread adoption, evidence describing condition-specific EDOU protocols remains fragmented. We conducted a scoping review to map the clinical conditions, characteristics, and outcomes of published EDOU protocols.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed was searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2025. Eligible publications reported condition-specific EDOU clinical care pathways for adult populations. Articles were screened and extracted by 2 reviewers in Covidence. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and Poisson regression modeling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6,741 publications identified, 239 met the inclusion criteria. Publications appeared in 93 journals and increased annually by 4%. Most studies were observational (72%) and conducted at academic centers (78%). Most protocols addressed diagnostic (45%) or diagnostic-therapeutic (28%) pathways, although there was a recent increasing trend in therapeutic pathways. Cardiology, particularly chest pain management, represented the predominant clinical focus, followed by infectious disease. Protocols describing geriatric care and viral illness management showed significant annual increases of 16% and 19%, respectively. Frequently reported outcomes included disposition rates, mortality, and return emergency department visits, whereas patient- and provider-centered outcomes were less commonly assessed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EDOU protocol literature has expanded substantially over the past 25 years but remains concentrated in a limited number of clinical domains. Greater emphasis on underrepresented conditions and outcome measures may help guide the next generation of evidence-based EDOU protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":"7 4","pages":"100425"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13234234/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acepjo.2026.100425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emergency Department Observation Units (EDOUs) provide time-limited care for patients not clearly requiring inpatient admission. Despite widespread adoption, evidence describing condition-specific EDOU protocols remains fragmented. We conducted a scoping review to map the clinical conditions, characteristics, and outcomes of published EDOU protocols.

Methods: This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed was searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2025. Eligible publications reported condition-specific EDOU clinical care pathways for adult populations. Articles were screened and extracted by 2 reviewers in Covidence. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and Poisson regression modeling.

Results: Of 6,741 publications identified, 239 met the inclusion criteria. Publications appeared in 93 journals and increased annually by 4%. Most studies were observational (72%) and conducted at academic centers (78%). Most protocols addressed diagnostic (45%) or diagnostic-therapeutic (28%) pathways, although there was a recent increasing trend in therapeutic pathways. Cardiology, particularly chest pain management, represented the predominant clinical focus, followed by infectious disease. Protocols describing geriatric care and viral illness management showed significant annual increases of 16% and 19%, respectively. Frequently reported outcomes included disposition rates, mortality, and return emergency department visits, whereas patient- and provider-centered outcomes were less commonly assessed.

Conclusions: The EDOU protocol literature has expanded substantially over the past 25 years but remains concentrated in a limited number of clinical domains. Greater emphasis on underrepresented conditions and outcome measures may help guide the next generation of evidence-based EDOU protocols.

在急诊科观察室使用的特定条件方案:范围审查。
背景:急诊科观察单元(edou)为不明确需要住院的患者提供有时限的护理。尽管被广泛采用,但描述特定条件的EDOU协议的证据仍然是碎片化的。我们进行了一项范围综述,以绘制已发表的EDOU方案的临床状况、特征和结果。方法:本综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价(PRISMA-ScR)指南的首选报告项目。PubMed检索了2000年1月1日至2025年6月1日之间发表的文章。符合条件的出版物报道了成人人群的特定条件的EDOU临床护理途径。文章由2名审稿人在《covid - ence》中筛选和提取。使用描述性统计和泊松回归模型对研究结果进行总结。结果:6741篇文献中,239篇符合纳入标准。发表在93种期刊上,年增长率为4%。大多数研究是观察性的(72%),在学术中心进行的(78%)。大多数方案涉及诊断(45%)或诊断-治疗(28%)途径,尽管最近治疗途径有增加的趋势。心脏病学,特别是胸痛管理,是主要的临床焦点,其次是传染病。描述老年护理和病毒性疾病管理的方案分别显示每年显著增加16%和19%。经常报道的结果包括处置率、死亡率和急诊回访,而以患者和提供者为中心的结果较少被评估。结论:在过去的25年里,EDOU方案文献有了很大的扩展,但仍然集中在有限的临床领域。更多地强调代表性不足的情况和结果措施可能有助于指导下一代循证EDOU方案。
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
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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
小红书