. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Oct;20(10):969–985. doi: 10.1111/acem.12219

Table 3. Prehospital Diversion of Low-acuity Patients.

Author (Year)	Design	Population	Intervention	Effect on ED Use	Effect on Non-ED Use
Schaefer et al. (2002)²⁵	Cohort study with matched historical controls United States August 2000–January 2001	Two EMS Intervention group: 1,016 patients Control (historical) group: 2,617 patients	Low-acuity patients in the intervention group were offered an alternate care sources (clinic or home care) rather than ED use by the EMS staff	There was 7% fewer ED use by the intervention group compared to the control group (44.6% vs. 51.8%) (p = 0.001)	Clinic use: there was 3.5% more clinic use by the intervention group compared to the control group (8% vs. 4.5%) (p = 0.001) No transport (home care): there was 3.7% more home care (no transport) by the intervention group compared to the control group (47.4% vs. 4.5) (p = 0.043)
Snooks et al. (2004)²⁶	Cluster randomized controlled trial United Kingdom 6 months	Two EMS. Intervention group: 409 patients Control group: 425 patients	Low-acuity patients in the intervention group were transported to a MIU by the EMS staff	There was 2.8% fewer ED use by the intervention group compared to the control group (74.1% vs. 76.9%)	MIU use: there was 1.3% more MIU use by the intervention group compared to the control group (10% vs. 8.7%)

MIU = minor injuries unit.