Implementation of a general practitioner cooperative adjacent to the emergency department of a hospital increases the caseload for the GPC but not for the emergency department

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation

Background

Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models.

Design

Mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Methods

Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development.

Results

General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models.

Limitations

The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services.

Future work

The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Interventions in primary and community care to reduce urgent paediatric hospital admissions: systematic review

BACKGROUND

There has been a rise in urgent paediatric hospital admissions and interventions to address this are required.

OBJECTIVE

To systemically review the literature describing community (or non-hospital)-based interventions designed to reduce emergency department (ED) visits or urgent hospital admissions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, OVIS SP, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded/ISI Web of Science (1981-present), the Cochrane Library database and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged <16 years.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Papers were independently reviewed by two researchers. Data extraction and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklist was completed (for risk of bias assessment).

RESULTS

Seven studies were identified. Three studies were RCTs, three were a comparison between non-randomised groups and one was a before-and-after study. Interventions were reconfiguration of staff roles (two papers), telemedicine (three papers), pathways of urgent care (one paper) and point-of-care testing (one paper). Reconfiguration of staff roles resulted in reduction in ED visits in one study (with a commensurate increase in general practitioner visits) but increased hospital admissions from ED in a second. Telemedicine was associated with a reduction in children's admissions in one study and reduced ED admissions in two further studies. Interventions with pathways of care and point-of-care testing did not impact either ED visits or urgent admissions.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

New out-of-hospital models of urgent care for children need to be introduced and evaluated without delay.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021274374.

Realist analysis of whether emergency departments with primary care services generate 'provider-induced demand'

Background

It is not known whether emergency departments (EDs) with primary care services influence demand for non-urgent care (‘provider-induced demand’). We proposed that distinct primary care services in EDs encourages primary care demand, whereas primary care integrated within EDs may be less likely to cause additional demand. We aimed to explore this and explain contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) influencing demand.

Methods

We used realist evaluation methodology and observed ED service delivery. Twenty-four patients and 106 staff members (including Clinical Directors and General Practitioners) were interviewed at 13 EDs in England and Wales (240 hours of observations across 30 days). Field notes from observations and interviews were analysed by creating ‘CMO’ configurations to develop and refine theories relating to drivers of demand.

Results

EDs with distinct primary care services were perceived to attract demand for primary care because services were visible, known or enabled direct access to health care services. Other influencing factors included patients’ experiences of accessing primary care, community care capacity, service design and population characteristics.

Conclusions

Patient, local-system and wider-system factors can contribute to additional demand at EDs that include primary care services. Our findings can inform service providers and policymakers in developing strategies to limit the effect of potential influences on additional demand when demand exceeds capacity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-022-00709-2.

Differences in emergency nurse triage between a simulated setting and the real world, post hoc analysis of a cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

In the TRIAGE trial, a cluster randomised trial about diverting emergency department (ED) patients to a general practice cooperative (GPC) using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System, the difference in the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC was striking: 13.3% in the intervention group (patients were encouraged to comply to an ED or GPC assignment, real-world setting) and 24.7% in the control group (the assignment was not communicated, all remained at the ED, simulated setting). In this secondary analysis, we assess the differences in the use of the triage tool between intervention and control group and differences in costs and hospitalisations for patients assigned to the GPC.

SETTING

ED of a general hospital and the adjacent GPC.

PARTICIPANTS

8038 patients (6294 intervention and 1744 control).Primary and secondary outcome measures proportion of patients with triage parameters (reason for encounter, discriminator and urgency category) leading to an assignment to the ED, proportion of patients for which the computer-generated GPC assignment was overruled, motivations for choosing certain parameters, costs (invoices) and hospitalisations.

RESULTS

An additional 3.1% (p<0.01) of the patients in the intervention group were classified as urgent. Discriminators leading to the ED were registered for an additional 16.2% (p<0.01), mainly because of a perceived need for imaging. Nurses equally chose flow charts leading to the ED (p=0.41) and equally overruled the protocol (p=0.91). In the intervention group, the mean cost for patients assigned to the GPC was €23 (p<0.01) lower and less patients with an assignment to the GPC were hospitalised (1.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Nurses used a triage tool more risk averse when it was used to divert patients to primary care as compared with a theoretical assignment to primary care. Outcomes from a simulated setting should not be extrapolated to real patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03793972.

Advanced triage to redirect non-urgent Emergency Department visits to alternative care centers: the PERSEE algorithm

OBJECTIVES

Primary care treatable visits in the Emergency Department (ED) are part of the different factors leading to the overcrowding. Their triage and diversion to alternative care centers could potentially help manage the increasing inflow provided the establishment of an advanced triage to ensure patients' safety. We aim to suggest a new triage tool, PERSEE, and prove its feasibility, safety and performance.

METHODS

All self-referrals presented to the ED were triaged with the PERSEE algorithm: first, patients were classified with a five-level ED acuity scale and then evaluated by algorithms to determine their appropriate category (ED or Primary Care). Patients were eligible for a redirection if they were triaged by the acuity scale as level 3 or lower, considered as ambulatory patients and finally categorized as primary care patients. We defined appropriate redirections as patients requiring less than three emergency resources, no emergency-specific treatment and no hospitalization.

RESULTS

During the study, 1999 patients were admitted to the ED. Among those, 1333 patients were self-referred (66.9%) of whom 1167 patients were triaged as level 3 or below (58.6%) and 775 patients triaged as ambulatory (39.0%). Among the 775 patients, 200 patients were categorized as primary care treatable (10.0%) and thereby, as potentially eligible for a redirection. We noticed an error rate of 7%, sensitivity of 24.06% and specificity of 97.6%. The redirection rate reached 15% of the self-referrals.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that PERSEE triage could lead to a safe redirection and could be an efficient tool to reduce ED crowding provided several adjustments.

Emergency department crowding: why do patients walk-in?

Objectives: For years, general practitioners (GP) shortage and patients' increasing demand for acute care have been associated with Emergency Department (ED) crowding. Indeed, EDs admissions for non-emergency care seem to constantly increase. Surprisingly, the rationale for patients own decision to directly reach EDs over primary care have been poorly investigated to date.Methods: We conducted a study on patients admitted in two University EDs during nine consecutive days. Patients were asked to answer a survey about their frames for coming and if they were self-referred, referred by a GP, a specialist or after calling the Emergency Number.Results: During the study period, 68.0% of patients were self-referred, 17.0% referred by their GP, 8.5% by a specialist and 7% after an emergency call. 51.0% of the self-referrals thought EDs were the appropriate location to deal with their health problem and 24.0% because of a better accessibility. We noticed that 15.0% of the incomings looked for specialized care and 4.22% reported that the stress had motivated them. Of note, 4.6% of the patients were attracted by the hospital reputation. Financial concerns represented less than 1.0% of the motives invocated.Conclusion: We found that patients' self-perceived severity of illness is the predominant frame to each the ED when they face needs for acute care. EDs' accessibility as compared with other facilities also seems to encourage patients to come to the ED. Other factors such as the hospital reputation or patients' stress tend to influence ED attendance but to a much lesser extent.

Co-location of out of hours primary care and emergency department in Belgium: patients' and physicians' view

Background

In Belgium, General Practitioner Cooperatives (GPC) aim to improve working conditions for unplanned care and to reduce the number of low acuity emergency visits. Although this system is well organized, the number of low acuity visits does not decrease.

Methods

We explored the view of patients and physicians on the co-location of a GPC and an emergency service for unplanned care. The study was carried out in a cross section design in primary and emergency care services and included patients and physicians. Main outcome measure was the view of patients and physician on co-location of a GPC and an emergency service.

Results

404 patients and 488 physicians participated. 334 (82.7%) of all patients favoured a co-location. The major advantages were fast service (104, 25.7) and adequate referral (54, 13.4%). 237 (74%) of the GPs and 38 (95%) of the emergency physicians were in favour of a co-location. The major advantage was a more adequate referral of patients. 254 (79%) of the GPs and 23 (83%) of the emergency physicians believed that a co-location would lower the workload and waiting time and increase care quality (resp. 251 (78%), 224 (70%) and 37 (93%), 34 (85%).

Conclusions

To close the expectation gap between GP’s, emergency physicians and to reach for high care quality, information campaigns and development of workflows are indispensable for a successful implementation of a co-location of primary and emergency care.

Examining differences in out-of-hours primary care use in Belgium and the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

Background

The organizational model of out-of-hours primary care is likely to affect healthcare use. We aimed to examine differences in the use of general practitioner cooperatives for out-of-hours care in the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders) and explore if these are related to organizational differences.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study using routine electronic health record data of the year 2016 from 77 general practitioner cooperatives in the Netherlands and 5 general practitioner cooperatives in Belgium (Flanders). Patient age, gender and health problem were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

The number of consultations per 1000 residents was 2.3 times higher in the Netherlands than in Belgium. Excluding telephone consultations, which are not possible in Belgium, the number of consultations was 1.4 times higher. In Belgium, the top 10 of health problems was mainly related to infections, while in the Netherlands there were a larger variety of health problems. In addition, the health problem codes in the Dutch top 10 were more often symptoms, while the codes in the Belgian top 10 were more often diagnoses. In both countries, a relatively large percentage of GPC patients were young children and female patients.

Conclusion

Differences in the use of general practitioner cooperatives seem to be related to the gatekeeping role of general practitioners in the Netherlands and to organizational differences such as telephone triage, medical advice by telephone, financial thresholds and number of years of experience with the system. The information can benefit policy decisions about the organization of out-of-hours primary care.

The impact of improved access to after-hours primary care on emergency department and primary care utilization: A systematic review

Access to after-hours primary care is problematic in many developed countries, leading patients to instead visit the emergency department for non-urgent conditions. However, emergency department utilization for conditions treatable in primary care settings may contribute to emergency department overcrowding and increased health system costs. This systematic review examines the impact of various initiatives by developed countries to improve access to after-hours primary care on emergency department and primary care utilization. We performed a systematic review on the impact of improved access to after-hours primary and searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus. We identified 20 studies that examined the impact of improved access to after-hours primary care on ED utilization and 6 studies that examined the impact on primary care utilization. Improved access to after-hours primary care was associated with increased primary care utilization, but had a mixed effect on emergency department utilization, with limited evidence of a reduction in non-urgent and semi-urgent emergency department visits. Although our review suggests that improved access to after-hours primary care may limit emergency department utilization by shifting patient care from the emergency department back to primary care, rigorous research in a given institutional context is required before introducing any initiative to improve access to after-hours primary care.

Performance of a new guideline for telephone triage in out-of-hours services in Belgium: A pilot study using simulated patients

BACKGROUND

Patients in Belgium needing out-of-hours care have two options: the emergency department or the general practitioner on call often organised in a general practitioner cooperative. Currently, there is no triage system in Belgium so patients do not know where to go.

METHODS

Our primary objective was to examine the ability of a newly developed telephone guideline, called 1733, to adequately estimate the urgency of health problems presented by simulated patients. Ten clinical vignettes were presented to 12 operators in a simulated phone call. The operators had to assign a protocol, urgency level and resource to dispatch (ambulance, general practitioner house visit, etc.) to each case.

RESULTS

A total of 120 phone calls were analysed. The operators chose the right protocol in 69% and the correct urgency level in 35% of the cases. The proportion of under- and over-triage was 26% and 39%, respectively. There was important variation in between the operators. The sensitivity for detecting highly urgent cases was 0.42, the specificity 0.92.

CONCLUSION

Using the new Belgian 1733 guideline for telephone triage, operators mostly chose the appropriate protocol but only chose the correct urgency in one out of three cases. In this phase of development, the studied telephone guideline is not ready for implementation.

The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review

OBJECTIVES

Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak.

DESIGN

Rapid realist literature review.

SETTING

Emergency departments.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments.

AIM

To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system.

RESULTS

Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017069741.

Video-recording consultations for educational purposes in out-of-hours primary care: patients and physicians are willing to participate

Background Video-recordings of consultations are used by general practitioner (GP) trainees to enable reflection on aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Typically, these recordings are made during office hours in general practice, but little is known about using video-recording during out of hours (OOH) care, which is an important and distinct part of a GP's work. To be able to record consultations during OOH care (i.e. at the emergency department (ED) and at the General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC)), patients must be willing to cooperate and give informed consent. Therefore, it was of interest to investigate potential barriers in these OOH settings. Methods A questionnaire on demographics and attitudes regarding consent was administered to patients and physicians at the ED and at the GPC in Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. Results A total of 346 questionnaires were completed, 23 by physicians and 323 by patients. A majority of the patients (225/286 (79%)) would consent to video-recording the consultation, without physical examination. Almost all physicians (21/23) would agree to participate. Overall, 85% (260/323) of the patients agree when only the doctor was being recorded. Patients were neutral in recording in 79% (88/224) at the GPC and 57% (56/99) at the ED. Shyness or embarrassment was present in 32% (71/224), and 28% (28/99) at the GPC and ED, respectively. We did not find any significant differences in giving consent or feelings between patients at the GPC and ED. Conclusion A vast majority of both patients and physicians would consent to video-recording their consultation in OOH primary care settings (GPC and ED), with possible concerns about privacy, shame and discomfort.

Primary care professionals providing non-urgent care in hospital emergency departments

BACKGROUND

In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long waits, and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has been to provide primary care services alongside or within hospital EDs for patients with non-urgent problems. However, it is unknown how this impacts the quality of patient care and the utilisation of hospital resources, or if it is cost-effective. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of locating primary care professionals in hospital EDs to provide care for patients with non-urgent health problems, compared with care provided by regularly scheduled emergency physicians (EPs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and King's Fund, from inception until 10 May 2017. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP for registered clinical trials, and screened reference lists of included papers and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of introducing primary care professionals to hospital EDs attending to patients with non-urgent conditions, as compared to the care provided by regularly scheduled EPs.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four trials (one randomised trial and three non-randomised trials), one of which is newly identified in this update, involving a total of 11,463 patients, 16 general practitioners (GPs), 9 emergency nurse practitioners (NPs), and 69 EPs. These studies evaluated the effects of introducing GPs or emergency NPs to provide care to patients with non-urgent problems in the ED, as compared to EPs for outcomes such as resource use. The studies were conducted in Ireland, the UK, and Australia, and had an overall high or unclear risk of bias. The outcomes investigated were similar across studies, and there was considerable variation in the triage system used, the level of expertise and experience of the medical practitioners, and type of hospital (urban teaching, suburban community hospital). Main sources of funding were national or regional health authorities and a medical research funding body.There was high heterogeneity across studies, which precluded pooling data. It is uncertain whether the intervention reduces time from arrival to clinical assessment and treatment or total length of ED stay (1 study; 260 participants), admissions to hospital, diagnostic tests, treatments given, or consultations or referrals to hospital-based specialist (3 studies; 11,203 participants), as well as costs (2 studies; 9325 participants), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low-certainty for all outcomes.No data were reported on adverse events (such as ED returns and mortality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We assessed the evidence from the four included studies as of very low-certainty overall, as the results are inconsistent and safety has not been examined. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions for practice or policy regarding the effectiveness and safety of care provided to non-urgent patients by GPs and NPs versus EPs in the ED to mitigate problems of overcrowding, wait times, and patient flow.