Evidence Hub

Critical care delivery models in emergency departments: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of related outcome effects

Noitz M, Ilko SA, Dünser MW, Behringer W, Wildner B, Herkner H

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026

49 participants

Abstract

Background: Critical care delivery in the emergency department (ED) may improve selected patient- and system-relevant outcomes. However, it remains unclear which organisational models to deliver critical care in the ED (CC-ED) have been implemented and what their outcome effects are.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies describing organisational approaches to deliver CC-ED. Delivery models were categorised and described qualitatively. For studies reporting comparable outcomes, random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled effects and 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and cost of care.

Results: Of 4,967 records, 67 were included into the qualitative assessment and 11 studies into the quantitative analysis, respectively. We identified five models to deliver CC-ED. These consisted of dedicated critical care areas in the ED (n = 49/67, 73.1%), placement of critical care staff in the ED (n = 5/67, 7.5%), deployment of critical care teams to the ED (n = 5/67, 7.5%), telemedical support of ED staff by critical care teams (n = 5/67, 7.5%), and implementation of protocols to accelerate ICU admission (n = 3/67, 4.5%). Mortality was not different versus usual care in any of the CC-ED models. CC-ED models had variable effects on the ICU admission rate, hospital and ICU LOS. Dedicated critical care areas in the ED were associated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 49 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free