Emergency departments with or without a co-located primary care driven urgent care center

Reading time approx. 1 minute
This page contains 1 evidence gap
  1. Emergency departments with or without a co-located primary care driven urgent care center
Population:
Adults and children contacting emergency care
Intervention:
ED (emergency department) with a co-located care driven UCC (urgent care center) with shared triage with the ED
Comparison:
ED without co-located primary care driven UCC
Outcomes:
• Mortality
• Serious adverse event (misdiagnosis of time-critical condition)
• Time to physician
• Length of stay
• Time to decision on hospitalization or discharge
• Patient satisfaction (including communication)
• Unplanned revisit (within 72 hours)
• Crowding
• Resource usage
• Distribution to different care levels

What evidence is needed?

More primary research is needed.

What evidence is available?

Reliable systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

Benefits and risks of emergency departments with or without a co-located primary care driven urgent care center [Nytta och risker av akutmottagningar med jämfört med akutmottagningar utan ansluten primärvårdsdriven närakut]. Region Västra Götaland, HTA-centrum, HTA report 2024:139.
More about the review

Reliable, but not updated, systematic reviews that show evidence gaps:

None identified

Registration number:
Published:
Research conducted after publication could potentially change the nature of the evidence.
To top

Evidence gap identifies methods or practices for which no conclusive systematic review of benefits and harms has been published. Gaps in scientific evidence appear on the SBU website to help researchers and granting agencies identify areas that are in need of research or systematic review. An additional objective is to offer healthcare and social service providers a basis for setting priorities.