Evidence Hub

Evaluation of the accuracy, safety, utility and feasibility of using an urgency self-assessment application in self-referred patients in the emergency department: study protocol for a prospective, multicenter cohort trial

Krüger D, Legg D, Jouhoff D, Eienbröker L, Köhne N, Neumann K, Möckel M, Slagman A

Trials, 2025

150 participants

Abstract

Background: Algorithm-based patient navigation is a key feature of the emergency and acute care reform being discussed in Germany. The software Structured Initial Medical Evaluation in Germany (SmED) is designed to assist in determining the appropriate time for medical complaints to be treated, as well as their most appropriate level of care. SmED is available in three different configurations, each of which is currently used in the German acute care sector and can be utilized by either a provider (SmED-Contact, SmED-Contact +) or a self-applicant (SmED-Patient). SmED-Patient is offered as a web-based self-assessment application that provides recommendations on the medical urgency and appropriate level of care for acute symptoms. This is the first study to explore and evaluate the accuracy, safety, utility and feasibility of using the self-assessment application SmED-Patient for self-referring patients and medical staff in the emergency department (ED) setting in Germany.

Methods: The study uses a mixed methods approach, including a prospective, multicenter cohort study combined with retrospective expert review of SmED-Patient recommendations for all cases by an expert panel as well as focus groups and a microsimulation. Expert reviews assess SmED-Patient recommendations on patients' treatment urgency and the appropriate level of care based on routine clinical data. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) who self-refer at two inner-city emergency departments in Berlin (Germany) and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 150 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