Tran Viet, Barrington Giles, Page Simone
Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmanian Health Service, Hobart 7000, Australia.
Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7000, Australia.
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Apr 29;13(9):1022. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13091022.
Emergency departments (ED) are vital within the health system, often representing the first hospital contact for patients who are undifferentiated and may be critically ill. Although advancements in digital technology and increasing use of electronic medical records in health systems have led to the dramatic growth of large data sets, the presence of ED clinical registries to measure quality of care in the literature is currently unknown.
Our scoping review aims to investigate the extent of emergency department clinical registries reported in peer-reviewed literature.
We conducted a scoping review of ED registries in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Searches were undertaken in PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS. Studies were included if they described a clinical registry with a focus on the ED.
We identified 60 manuscripts with 27 identified as primary registries (6 had a general scope, 21 were condition or population specific). The remaining 33 papers were investigational reports sourced from the identified primary registries. Funding sources were identified for some registries: three by research grants, two by medical colleges, five by government organizations or initiatives, two by pharmaceutical companies, and three by research institutes. No funding information was provided in 12 studies. The reported registry periods ranged from 31 days to 4018 days (median 365 days, IQR 181-1309 days). A grey literature search revealed that six registries were ongoing.
Internationally, there appears to be a wide degree of heterogeneity with primary ED registry publications and secondary publications. Having a standardized approach to ED registries is needed. Integrating ED registries with a learning health system model will enable clinicians to serve their community proactively and with a focus on quality, rather than the current safety-focused approach.
急诊科在卫生系统中至关重要，通常是未分化且可能危重症患者与医院的首次接触点。尽管数字技术的进步以及卫生系统中电子病历使用的增加导致了大数据集的急剧增长，但目前尚不清楚文献中是否存在用于衡量医疗质量的急诊科临床登记系统。
我们的范围综述旨在调查同行评审文献中报道的急诊科临床登记系统的范围。
我们根据PRISMA-ScR清单对急诊科登记系统进行了范围综述。在PUBMED、EMBASE和SCOPUS中进行了检索。如果研究描述了以急诊科为重点的临床登记系统，则纳入研究。
我们确定了60篇手稿，其中27篇被确定为主要登记系统（6篇范围广泛，21篇针对特定病症或人群）。其余33篇论文是来自已确定的主要登记系统的调查报告。部分登记系统确定了资金来源：3个由研究资助，2个由医学院，5个由政府组织或倡议，2个由制药公司，3个由研究机构。12项研究未提供资金信息。报告的登记系统时间段从31天到4018天不等（中位数365天，四分位间距181 - 1309天）。灰色文献检索显示有6个登记系统正在进行中。
在国际上，急诊科主要登记系统出版物和二级出版物似乎存在很大程度的异质性。需要一种标准化的急诊科登记系统方法。将急诊科登记系统与学习型卫生系统模式相结合，将使临床医生能够积极为社区服务，并专注于质量，而不是当前以安全为重点的方法。
