Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department

Matthew White; Gerard M. O'Reilly; Rob D. Mitchell; Michael Noonan; Ryan Hiller; Biswadev Mitra; Andrew Paton; Kathryn Pristupa; Carl Luckhoff; De Villiers Smit; Peter A. Cameron

doi:10.1111/1742-6723.13984

Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department

Matthew White, Gerard M. O'Reilly, Rob D. Mitchell, Michael Noonan, Ryan Hiller, Biswadev Mitra, Andrew Paton, Kathryn Pristupa, Carl Luckhoff, De Villiers Smit, Peter A. Cameron

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the feasibility of an ED presenting complaint (PC) tool that categorised all ED PCs into 10 categories. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1445 consecutive patient encounters was conducted. The primary outcome was the frequency of use of the 10 PC categories. Results: Of the 1203 patient encounters meeting inclusion criteria, the PC tool was completed by clinicians in 574 (47.7%). When completed, the tool's 10 options were selected for most presentations (72.3%). Conclusion: The PC tool captured the majority of presenting complaints in 10 categories. External validation is recommended.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	620-622
Number of pages	3
Journal	EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
Volume	34
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13984
Publication status	Published - Aug 2022

Keywords

emergency
health information
presenting complaint
quality
registry

Access to Document

10.1111/1742-6723.13984Licence: CC BY

Cite this

White, M., O'Reilly, G. M., Mitchell, R. D., Noonan, M., Hiller, R., Mitra, B., Paton, A., Pristupa, K., Luckhoff, C., Smit, D. V., & Cameron, P. A. (2022). Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 34(4), 620-622. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13984

@article{e376b0eaae5444da88cafecc06f8c18c,

title = "Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department",

abstract = "Objective: To assess the feasibility of an ED presenting complaint (PC) tool that categorised all ED PCs into 10 categories. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1445 consecutive patient encounters was conducted. The primary outcome was the frequency of use of the 10 PC categories. Results: Of the 1203 patient encounters meeting inclusion criteria, the PC tool was completed by clinicians in 574 (47.7%). When completed, the tool's 10 options were selected for most presentations (72.3%). Conclusion: The PC tool captured the majority of presenting complaints in 10 categories. External validation is recommended.",

keywords = "emergency, health information, presenting complaint, quality, registry",

author = "Matthew White and O'Reilly, {Gerard M.} and Mitchell, {Rob D.} and Michael Noonan and Ryan Hiller and Biswadev Mitra and Andrew Paton and Kathryn Pristupa and Carl Luckhoff and Smit, {De Villiers} and Cameron, {Peter A.}",

note = "Funding Information: RDM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship and Monash University Graduate Excellence Scholarship. PAC is funded by an MRFF practitioner fellowship (MRF1139686). Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Authors. Emergency Medicine Australasia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.",

year = "2022",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1111/1742-6723.13984",

language = "English",

volume = "34",

pages = "620--622",

journal = "EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia",

issn = "1742-6731",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "4",

}

White, M, O'Reilly, GM, Mitchell, RD, Noonan, M, Hiller, R, Mitra, B, Paton, A, Pristupa, K, Luckhoff, C, Smit, DV & Cameron, PA 2022, 'Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department', EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 620-622. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13984

TY - JOUR

T1 - Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project

T2 - An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department

AU - White, Matthew

AU - O'Reilly, Gerard M.

AU - Mitchell, Rob D.

AU - Noonan, Michael

AU - Hiller, Ryan

AU - Mitra, Biswadev

AU - Paton, Andrew

AU - Pristupa, Kathryn

AU - Luckhoff, Carl

AU - Smit, De Villiers

AU - Cameron, Peter A.

N1 - Funding Information: RDM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship and Monash University Graduate Excellence Scholarship. PAC is funded by an MRFF practitioner fellowship (MRF1139686). Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. Emergency Medicine Australasia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.

PY - 2022/8

Y1 - 2022/8

N2 - Objective: To assess the feasibility of an ED presenting complaint (PC) tool that categorised all ED PCs into 10 categories. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1445 consecutive patient encounters was conducted. The primary outcome was the frequency of use of the 10 PC categories. Results: Of the 1203 patient encounters meeting inclusion criteria, the PC tool was completed by clinicians in 574 (47.7%). When completed, the tool's 10 options were selected for most presentations (72.3%). Conclusion: The PC tool captured the majority of presenting complaints in 10 categories. External validation is recommended.

AB - Objective: To assess the feasibility of an ED presenting complaint (PC) tool that categorised all ED PCs into 10 categories. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1445 consecutive patient encounters was conducted. The primary outcome was the frequency of use of the 10 PC categories. Results: Of the 1203 patient encounters meeting inclusion criteria, the PC tool was completed by clinicians in 574 (47.7%). When completed, the tool's 10 options were selected for most presentations (72.3%). Conclusion: The PC tool captured the majority of presenting complaints in 10 categories. External validation is recommended.

KW - emergency

KW - health information

KW - presenting complaint

KW - quality

KW - registry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128384210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1742-6723.13984

DO - 10.1111/1742-6723.13984

M3 - Article

C2 - 35445558

AN - SCOPUS:85128384210

SN - 1742-6731

VL - 34

SP - 620

EP - 622

JO - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia

JF - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia

IS - 4

ER -

Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Optimising Emergency and Trauma Systems through evidence based pathways

Cite this

Informing the Alfred Registry for Emergency Care Project: An analysis of presenting complaint documentation in an emergency department

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Projects

Optimising Emergency and Trauma Systems through evidence based pathways

Cite this