The entirety of emergency department patients is included. No specific diseases are examined.
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Assessment of the patients using SmED-Contact+ by the study staff and self-assessment of the patients using SmED-Patient, in randomised order of the SmED assessments.
Sponsors
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Independent presentation in one of the participating emergency departments (self-referral) Feasibility of SmED patient (sufficient German or English language skills, verbal communication possible, sufficient cognition, etc.)
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Minor Admission or medical transport to the emergency department Urgent medical care Lack of capacity to consent Insufficient knowledge of the German or English language Legal guardianship
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Percentage of perfect agreement in the assessment of the level of care between SmED-Patient and the physician expert panel for patients who self-referred to the emergency department. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Symptom assessment overlap and utility: Assessment of recommendation and symptom assessment by SmED-Patient compared to a physician assessment and the utility of SmED-Patient in the ED (physician assessment in a sub-sample of n=30-60 cases). Agreement of SmED ratings: Percentage of agreement between the recommendations of SmED-Patient and SmED-Contact+. Patient safety and appropriateness: Percentage of cases in which the SmED-Patient recommendation is judged by the experts to be appropriate, appropriate but too cautious, or inappropriate and potentially hazardous (judged according to a range of appropriateness). Patient assessment of urgency: Percentage of disagreements between patients’ self-assessed urgency and SmED-Patient assessed urgency. Patient utility: Evaluation of utility, including comprehensibility, usability, confidence with responses, response time, satisfaction, trust and hypothetical compliance as well as preparedness for the medical consultation. Subgroup analysis: Investigation of aspects that influence patients’ assessment of SmED-Patient, e.g. health literacy, age. Provider utility: Qualitative evaluation of the utility, including practical utility and perceived benefits of the SmED-Patient short report and of SmED-Patient (full assessment) by ED personnel in focus groups. Feasibility: Qualitative assessment of the feasibility of implementing SmED-Patient in the ED setting. | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactAnna Slagman
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Outcome results
None listed