Multi-component

Moderate- and High-Quality Conclusive Evidence

Interventions with certain evidence or evidence with some uncertainty (moderate or high certainty) that is moderate or high quality based on AMSTAR 2 ratings.

No evidence found.

Table 1: New and Emerging Interventions

Intervention	Description	Implemented where?
Hospital command centre model	Centralized operating system focusing on hospital flow, diagnostics, clinical outcomes, home and community care Hospital capacity command centre	Humber River Health (Toronto, Ontario) McGill University Technology Assessment Unit (Montreal, Quebec)
NICE Recommendations for Research for Emergency and Acute Medical Care in Over 16s	Recommendations for research in extended access to general practitioners, community nursing, and social care services; expedient access and results from diagnostic services; adjuncts like clinical call handlers and decision support technologies; and minor injury units and urgent care centres	Experts from NICE in the UK
Rapid-access chest pain clinics	Patients with chest pain eligible for care outside ED	Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
e-Consultations	e-Consultations between pediatric orthopedic specialists Primary care providers using virtual consultation services for referrals International e-consultation services	Eastern Ontario Pan-Canadian Researchers from the US
ER2 deep learning tool to predict ED length of stay	Implementation of an Emergency Room Evaluation and Recommendations (ER2) tool	Montreal, Quebec
Mental health services in supportive housing	Outpatient collaborative mental health initiative in supportive housing that included multidisciplinary support for tenants, tenant engagement, and staff capacity building	Toronto, Ontario
Real-time locating system to identify ED bottlenecks and inefficiencies	Real-time location system data in combination with other traditional data to track patient flow through the ED to identify bottlenecks and delays	Researchers from Germany

ED = emergency department; NICE = National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Note: indicates implemented in Canada.

Table 2: Inconclusive, Unfavourable, or Low-Quality Evidence

ED = emergency department.
^a Population and setting characteristics of the individual studies that contributed to the evidence.
^b The outcome measured in the evidence with its quality based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2) ratings and the effectiveness across the evidence. Inconclusive: very uncertain evidence (has low or very low certainty). Unfavourable: unfavourable effectiveness of the intervention on outcomes versus a comparator. Low quality: systematic review has a critical flaw based on AMSTAR 2 ratings and may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest. Moderate quality: systematic review has more than 1 weakness, but no critical flaws. High quality: systematic review provides an accurate and comprehensive summary of the results of the available studies that address the question of interest. Favourable: certain evidence or evidence with some uncertainty of better effectiveness of the intervention versus a comparator. Neutral: certain evidence or evidence with some uncertainty (moderate or high certainty) that neither the intervention nor the comparator was favoured. Mixed: heterogeneous results for effectiveness of an intervention versus a comparator, and the heterogeneity is too serious to draw a conclusion. Unfavourable: unfavourable effectiveness of the intervention on outcomes versus a comparator. Inconclusive: very uncertain evidence (has low or very low certainty). No evidence: there is no evidence from primary studies.