Key result
SmED-Patient app undergoes evaluation for triage accuracy against expert panel in self-referred ED patients.
Why the study?
The accuracy, safety, utility, and feasibility of using the web-based self-assessment application SmED-Patient for self-referring patients in the German emergency department setting had not been evaluated.
Does the SmED-Patient self-assessment application accurately determine the appropriate level of care in adult self-referred patients in the emergency department?
Cohort (n=150)
Double-blind
Block randomization
Yes
Does the SmED-Patient self-assessment application accurately determine the appropriate level of care in adult self-referred patients in the emergency department?
This study protocol outlines a prospective cohort trial to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and utility of a patient-facing symptom assessment app for triaging self-referred emergency department patients in Germany.
Evaluation of SmED-Patient app accuracy in 150 ED patients; leaves open its role in safe triage.
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 able to provide written informed consent will be invited to participate. Target number of patients is n = 150. The primary endpoint is the accuracy of SmED-Patient's recommended level of care, measured as the agreement with the expert review for all cases. Secondary endpoints include safety, utility and feasibility of use. Data sources include primary data, routine clinical data, and qualitative data from focus groups and a microsimulation. DISCUSSION: This study will provide insight into the accuracy, utility, safety and feasibility of using the self-assessment application SmED-Patient in the ED. By facilitating medical self-assessment for self-referring walk-in patients, SmED-Patient could contribute to re-directing patients to ambulatory care providers, improving the efficiency of ED operations and benefit providers' as well as patients' care experiences in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00036266. 25/02/2025.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krüger et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Self-referred patients in the emergency department (n=150). SmED-Patient (urgency self-assessment application) vs. Expert panel recommendation and SmED-Contact+ was evaluated on Accuracy of SmED-Patient's recommended level of care, measured as perfect agreement with the expert panel review. The SmED-Patient urgency self-assessment application will be evaluated for its accuracy in recommending the appropriate level of care compared to an expert panel in 150 self-referred emergency department patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: