GP cooperative and emergency department: an exploration of patient flows

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.

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.

The implementation of the nationwide out-of-hours phone number 1733 in Belgium: analysis of efficiency and safety

Background:

Belgium has a problem with inappropriate use of emergency services. The government installed the number 1733 for out-of-hours care. Through a dry run test, we learned that 30% of all calls were allocated to the protocol ‘unclear problem’. In only 11.9% of all cases, there was an unclear problem.

Methods:

The study aimed to determine whether the adjusted protocol ‘unwell for no clear reason’ led to a safer and more efficient referral and to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the primary care protocols (PCPs). The study ran in cross-sectional design involving patients, General Practitioner Cooperatives and telephone operators. A random sample of calls to 1733 and patient referrals were assessed on efficiency and safety.

Results:

During 6 months in 2018, 11 622 calls to 1733 were registered. Seven hundred fifty-six of them were allocated to ‘unwell for no clear reason’, and a random sample of 180 calls was audited. To evaluate the PCPs, 202 calls were audited. The efficiency and safety of the protocol ‘unwell for no clear reason’ improved, and safety levels for under- and over-triage were not exceeded. The GP’s judged that 9/10 of all patient encounters were correctly referred.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated that the 1733-telephone triage system for out-of-hours care is successful if protocols, flow charts and emergency levels are well defined, monitored and operators are trained.

What do we know about demand, use and outcomes in primary care out-of-hours services? A systematic scoping review of international literature

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise international evidence for demand, use and outcomes of primary care out-of-hours health services (OOHS).

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL; Medline; PsyARTICLES; PsycINFO; SocINDEX; and Embase from 1995 to 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

English language studies in UK or similar international settings, focused on services in or directly impacting primary care.

RESULTS

105 studies included: 54% from mainland Europe/Republic of Ireland; 37% from UK. Most focused on general practitioner-led out-of-hours cooperatives. Evidence for increasing patient demand over time was weak due to data heterogeneity, infrequent reporting of population denominators and little adjustment for population sociodemographics. There was consistent evidence of higher OOHS use in the evening compared with overnight, at weekends and by certain groups (children aged <5, adults aged >65, women, those from socioeconomically deprived areas, with chronic diseases or mental health problems). Contact with OOHS was driven by problems perceived as urgent by patients. Respiratory, musculoskeletal, skin and abdominal symptoms were the most common reasons for contact in adults; fever and gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common in the under-5s. Frequent users of daytime services were also frequent OOHS users; difficulty accessing daytime services was also associated with OOHS use. There is some evidence to suggest that OOHS colocated in emergency departments (ED) can reduce demand in EDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy changes have impacted on OOHS over the past two decades. While there are generalisable lessons, a lack of comparable data makes it difficult to judge how demand has changed over time. Agreement on collection of OOHS data would allow robust comparisons within and across countries and across new models of care. Future developments in OOHS should also pay more attention to the relationship with daytime primary care and other services.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015029741.

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.

Cross-sectional study in an out-of-hours primary care centre in northwestern Germany - patient characteristics and the urgency of their treatment

Background

Due to the increasing number of non-urgent visits to emergency departments, it is becoming increasingly important to also investigate emergency care in out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. The aim of this study was to provide an insight into the care structures of an OOH primary care centre, to evaluate the reasons for encounter (RFE) and to assess the urgency of the treatment from the physicians´ point of view.

Methods

In the summer of 2017, we conducted a cross-sectional study over four weeks in the OOH primary care centre of Oldenburg, a city in Lower Saxony with about 160,000 inhabitants. We collected socio-demographic data, RFE and the duration of the complaints. The International Classification for Primary Care 2nd Edition (ICPC-2) was used to categorize symptoms. The attending physicians supplemented information on further treatment (including hospitalization) and the urgency of consultation in the OOH primary care centre.

Results

A total of 892 of the 1098 OOH patients which were visiting the OOH primary care centre took part in the study (participation: 81.2%). More than half of the patients were between 18 and 39 years old. A quarter of all RFE named by study participants were in the ICPC-2 category “skin”. More than 60% of patients had the symptoms for more than two days before visiting the OOH primary care centre. In 34.5% of all cases no medication was prescribed and one in six patients received further diagnostic tests such as urinalysis and blood tests (15.8%). From the physicians’ point of view, 26.3% of all study participants could have been treated by the family doctor during the regular consultation hours.

Conclusion

The study shows that in the OOH primary care centre about a quarter of all patients could have waited until regular consultation hours. Mostly young patients used the easily accessible and free care in the OOH primary care centre. Further studies are necessary to better understand the individual reasons of patients to use the OOH primary care centre.

The impact of an emergency care access point on pediatric attendances at the emergency department: An observational study

OBJECTIVE

Crowding is a growing concern in general and pediatric Emergency Departments (EDs). The Emergency Care Access Point (ECAP) - a collaboration between general practitioners and the ED - has been established to reduce the number of self-referrals and non-urgent ED visits. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of an ECAP on pediatric attendances in the ED.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 3997 pediatric patients who visited the ED of a regional teaching hospital in the Netherlands, one year before and one year after the implementation of an ECAP. Patient characteristics, presented complaints and diagnoses, throughput times, and follow-up between the study groups were compared, both during office hours and after-hours.

RESULTS

After ECAP implementation, a 16.3% reduction in pediatric ED visits was observed. ECAP implementation was associated with a decline in self-referrals by 97.2%. Presented complaints, ED diagnoses and acuity were similar pre- and post-ECAP. However, consultations and follow-up were required more frequently. The admission rate during nights increased (49.3% versus 64.0%). Overall admission rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an ECAP was associated with a reduction of pediatric ED use, including a considerable but expected decline in pediatric self-referrals. Patient acuity pre- and post-ECAP was similar. Our results suggest that this primary care intervention might help reduce the workload in a pediatric ED. Future studies are warranted to further investigate this hypothesis and to evaluate the impact of an ECAP in other healthcare settings. These future efforts need to include patient oriented outcomes.

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN51780222.

Treatment of ambulant patients by a general practitioner within a university hospital's emergency department - follow-up study of patients' behaviour shortly afterwards

Aims: Hospital emergency departments (ED) face an increasing number of outpatient cases. Therefore, Hannover Medical School employs general practitioners for the treatment of walk-in patients within the ED. Up to now, little has been reported on how these patients behave after treatment in the ED. This study aims to assess these patients' behaviour after attending the ED, to find out how many patients consult a physician subsequently, and to explore patients' utilisation of health care in case of similar health problems. Methods: For this follow-up study, patients treated at Hannover Medical School's ED during daytime (Monday - Friday) by a general practitioner (GP) within a period of six weeks in 2016 were subsequently followed up by phone interviews 10-15 days after their consultation. Main topics in the semi-structured interview guide were patients' behaviour after leaving the ED, subsequent contacts with medical care, and how patients would behave in the future given similar symptoms. Data were transferred to a SPSS database, and descriptive data analyses were performed. Results: In total, 171 patients were screened for inclusion, and 91 participated in the study. About half (n=48; 53%) of them were male, and the mean age was 46.6 years. After visiting the GP in the ED, 62 patients (68%) went directly home. Another 14 (15%) took up regular activities (e.g. work, university), while eight patients visited their usual GP practice. Within 10-15 days, 52 patients (57%) had had an appointment with a physician. In most cases this was a GP (n=34; 37%); 12 patients visited a specialist and six patients visited both a GP and a specialist. Physician appointments took place within an average of 3.4 days after treatment in the ED. In case of similar complaints, 37 patients (41%) would visit the ED again rather than visiting the GP, whereas 36% would consult the GP first, and 11% would visit a specialist first. Conclusion: A noteworthy number of patients considered visiting the ED again with similar symptoms instead of visiting a GP in ambulatory care. Consequently our findings suggest that the ED itself plays a minor role in navigating patients' utilisation of medical treatment.

Do out-of-hours general practitioner services and emergency departments cost more by collaborating or by working separately? A cost analysis

INTRODUCTION In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) and emergency departments (EDs) collaborate increasingly in urgent care collaborations (UCCs) in which the two services share one combined entrance and joint triage. AIM The objective of this study is to determine if UCCs are cost-effective compared to the usual care setting where out-of-hours GP services and EDs work separately. METHODS This observational study compared UCCs with the usual care setting on costs by performing linear regression analyses. These costs were also combined with two performance indicators: level of patient satisfaction and the length of stay. A non-parametric bootstrap (resampling) method was performed in order to analyze the cost-effect pairs. RESULTS During the study period, 122,061 patients visited EDs and the out-of-hours GP services. Total mean costs per episode were substantially higher in UCCs: ?480 versus ?392 respectively. In this study, two factors that contributed to higher costs in UCCs compared to usual care were identified. First, there was a higher proportion of GP consultations instead of cheaper medical advice for self-care in UCCs. Second, in UCCs there were more often double costs per episode, as more patients were referred to an ED after triage or consulting GP services. The cost-effectiveness analyses show that UCCs were not dominant on cost-effectiveness compared to the usual care setting. DISCUSSION A substitution of, often self-referring, patients from EDs to GP services does not result in lower costs to society, a shorter length of stay or a higher level of patient satisfaction.

Exploring emergency nurse practitioners' perceptions of their role

Since the 1980s, the emergency nurse practitioner (ENP) role has evolved as increasing socioeconomic pressures and changing government policy have led to new working practices in emergency departments. Similarly, a lack of consensus regarding educational support for ENPs and the regulation of ENP training, mean that variations remain in the scope of practice, role description and academic requirements for ENPs.

AIM

To explore ENPs' perceptions of their changing role, including their educational requirements and whether their training needs are being met.

METHOD

This qualitative phenomenological study examined the views of six ENPs using semi-structured interviews.

FINDINGS

The study identified four themes: inadequate protected time for continuing professional development (CPD); importance of senior medical support in role expansion and CPD; inconsistent educational preparation for expanded roles; and the ENPs' perceived reasons for role expansion. Although all the participants stated that it was challenging to find time for CPD when working in busy clinical environments, this was regarded as less important than the positive effect of senior medical support for advanced roles.

CONCLUSION

Over the past three decades, the ENP role has become well established, which has led to increased confidence, and the development of collaborative ways of working, among ENPs and their colleagues. However, while ENPs have embraced the challenges of their changing role, educational support has not been consistent. There are still disparities in ENPs' scope of practice, expectations of the role between services, and the educational preparation required to undertake the role.

Do employees benefit from collaborations between out of hours general practitioners and emergency departments?

BACKGROUND

In an attempt to redirect patients who are inappropriately attending hospital emergency departments (ED) and in doing so provide the right care at the right place, out-of-hours GP (General Practitioner) services and EDs increasingly collaborate in Urgent Care Collaborations (UCCs). Work satisfaction is an important factor in analysing the impact of this organisational change. The objective of this study is, firstly, to discover if there is a difference in the employee experiences between those working in UCCs and those in traditional out-of-hours services in which EDs and out-of-hours GP services operate separately (i.e. "usual care"). Secondly, we would like to identify which factors affect employees' experiences in these settings.

METHODS

This study followed a cross-sectional study design, comparing usual care with UCCs. Data regarding employee experiences were collected from physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, medical assistants and front desk personnel, by means of a questionnaire with scales regarding quality, workload and co-operation between the out-of-hours GP service and ED. Independent samples t-tests were used to determine mean differences between the settings. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to test which items affected the perceived quality, workload and co-operation.

RESULTS

The results showed that mutual co-operation alone was perceived as significantly better in UCCs compared to usual care. If divided between employers, no differences were found in the employee experiences working in out-of-hours GP services. ED employees in UCCs experienced a significantly better co-operation with their GP colleagues than their peers in the usual care setting, but also a higher workload. Remarkably, ED employees were less satisfied in general. The multiple regression model showed that perceived quality, workload and co-operation were interrelated. Co-operation was the only aspect that was rated higher in the UCC setting.

CONCLUSION

While perceived quality is equal and co-operation between out-of-hours GP service and ED is better, the objective and perceived ED workload was higher in UCCs compared to usual care. Though UCCs relieve the pressure on EDs concerning the number of patients, they seem to aggravate the workload. EDs need to be careful not to excessively adjust staff capacity when responding to lower numbers of patients.

Does X-ray imaging by GPC at emergency care access points in the Netherlands change patient flow and reduce ED crowding? A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Organizing out-of-hours emergency care is a challenge in many countries. In the Netherlands, general practitioner cooperatives (GPCs) and emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly working together, creating one emergency care access point (ECAP). This has redirected the majority of patients with musculoskeletal problems from the ED to the GPC in out-of-hours care, due to the treatment of self-referrals by the general practitioner (GP). Only a minority of the GPs at ECAPs have the possibility to request X-rays, and expanding these facilities could reduce patient presentations to the ED even more. The aim of our study was to explore patient flow and possible reductions in ED referrals at an ECAP with X-ray facilities for GPs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examines all patients that visited an ECAP at a general city hospital in the Netherlands and had an X-ray imaging requested by the GPC between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. General practitioner cooperatives could request X-rays between 5 pm and 10 pm on weekdays and between 8 am and 10 pm during weekends. Recorded data included sex, age, number and type of X-ray, X-ray abnormalities, referral to the ED, and treatment. The annual number of patients presenting to the GPC and ED in 2014 were gathered. Patient outcome was stated negative when the X-ray revealed no abnormality.

RESULTS

A total of 2243 patients received 2663 X-ray examinations. The mean age was 31 years and 48% was male. A total of 1517 (68%) patients were treated at the GPC without an ED referral, a reduction of 4.5% of the annual ED patients.

CONCLUSIONS

With a majority (68%) of the patients examined and treated at the GPC, X-ray facilities at ECAPs will substantially reduce ED population, change patient flow, and have a positive effect on ED crowding. Implementing 24/7 X-ray facilities at all ECAPs will further enhance these effects.

Development and evaluation of an "emergency access button" in Danish out-of-hours primary care: a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hours (OOH) health care for acute medical problems is often challenged by long waiting time for callers in need of advice and triage. Allowing patients to bypass the OOH telephone waiting line may increase patient satisfaction and provide them with a feeling of safety. We aimed to develop an "emergency access button" enabling patients to bypass the normal telephone waiting line in out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) if they perceive their condition to be critical and to evaluate the effect of introducing the button in terms of patient satisfaction and their feeling of safety.

METHODS

All patients calling the OOH-PC in two different Danish health care regions during three months will be included in this randomized controlled trial. Data will be collected through two questionnaires developed for this study: a pop-up questionnaire on the relevance of bypassing the normal waiting line to be completed by triage professionals after patient contact and a paper/electronic questionnaire on perceived safety and satisfaction with the emergency access button to be completed by the callers. These questionnaires were developed and validated using external and internal expert feedback, focus group interviews and a two-week field test. The study will be conducted over three months with an estimated user-rate of the emergency access button of 3%.

DISCUSSION

We have developed an emergency access button and we now want to investigate whether this new option will influence upon the level of satisfaction and the feeling of safety in the calling patients. Additionally, the study will reveal the assessed relevance of the decision to bypass the line by triage professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered as NCT02572115 at Clinicaltrials.gov on October 5^th 2015.

Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study

Background

This study compares the assessment, treatment, referral, and follow up contact with the dispatch centre of emergency patients treated by two types of solo emergency care providers in ambulance emergency medical services (EMS) in the Netherlands: the physician assistant (PA), educated in the medical domain, and the ambulance registered nurse (RN), educated in the nursing domain. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no difference in outcome of care between the patients of PAs and RNs.

Methods

In a cross-sectional document study in two EMS regions we included 991 patients, treated by two PAs (n = 493) and 23 RNs (n = 498). The inclusion period was October 2010-December 2012 for region 1 and January 2013-March 2014 for region 2. Emergency care data were drawn from predefined and free text fields in the electronic patient records. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. We used χ² and Mann-Whitney U tests to analyse for differences in outcome of care. Statistical significance was assumed at a level of P <0.05.

Results

Patients treated by PAs and RNs were similar with respect to patient characteristics. In general, diagnostic measurements according to the national EMS standard were applied by RNs and by PAs. In line with the medical education, PAs used a medical diagnostic approach (16 %, n = 77) and a systematic physical exam of organ tract systems (31 %, n = 155). PAs and RNs provided similar interventions. Additionally, PAs consulted more often other medical specialists (33 %) than RNs (17 %) (χ² = 35.5, P <0.0001). PAs referred less patients to the general practitioner or emergency department (50 %) compared to RNs (73 %) (χ² = 52.9, P <0.0001). Patient follow up contact with the dispatch centre within 72 h after completion of the emergency care on scene showed no variation between PAs (5 %) and RNs (4 %).

Conclusions

In line with their medical education, PAs seemed to operate from a more general medical perspective. They used a medical diagnostic approach, consulted more medical specialists, and referred significantly less patients to other health care professionals compared to RNs. While the patients of the PAs did not contact the dispatch centre more often afterwards.

Impact of a well-developed primary care system on the length of stay in emergency departments in the Netherlands: a multicenter study

Background

The Netherlands has a well-developed primary care system, which increasingly collaborates with hospital emergency departments (EDs). In this setting, insight into crowding in EDs is limited. This study explored links between patients’ ED Length of Stay (LOS) and their care pathways.

Methods

Observational multicenter study of 7000 ED patient records from 1 February 2013. Seven EDs spread over the Netherlands, representing overall Dutch EDs, were included. This included three EDs with and four EDs without an integrated primary-care-physician (PCP) cooperative, forming one Emergency Care Access Point (ECAP). The main outcome was LOS of patients comparing different care pathways (origin and destination of ED attenders).

Results

The median LOS of ED attenders was 130.0 min (IQR 79.0–140.0), which increased with patients’ age. Random coefficient regression analysis showed that LOS for patients referred by medical professionals was 32.9 min longer compared to self-referred patients (95 % CI 27.7–38.2 min). LOS for patients admitted to hospital was 41.2 min longer compared to patients followed-up at the outpatient clinic (95 % CI 35.3–46.6 min), 49.9 min longer compared to patients followed-up at the PCP (95 % CI 41.5–58.3 min) and 44.6 min longer compared to patients who did not receive follow-up (95 % CI 38.3–51.0 min). There was no difference in LOS between hospitals with or without an ECAP.

Conclusions

With 130 min, the median LOS in Dutch EDs is relatively short, comparing to other Western countries, which ranges from 176 to 480 min. Although integration of EDs with out-of-hours primary care was not related to LOS, the strong primary care system probably contributed to the overall short LOS of ED patients in the Netherlands.

Complaints and Diagnoses of Emergency Department Patients in the Netherlands: A Comparative Study of Integrated Primary and Emergency Care

Objective

In the Netherlands, an increasing number of emergency departments (EDs) and general practitioner cooperatives collaborate by creating one Emergency-Care-Access-Point (ECAP). This has resulted in fewer patients at ECAP EDs. The objective of this study was to explore differences in patient characteristics, presented complaints and ED discharge diagnoses between EDs with an ECAP and EDs without an ECAP.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was performed with 1800 consecutive patient records sampled from six EDs spread over the Netherlands in 2013. We extracted data on time and date of presentation, sex, age, presenting complaint, discharge diagnosis, origin and follow up.

Results

At ECAP EDs, the mean age was 47.8 years (95%CI 46.1-49.4) compared to 41.3 (95%CI 39.7-42.9). Compared to non-ECAP EDs, more patients were referred by medical professionals (74.7% versus 46.8%), more patients received hospital admission (45.2% versus 29.0%) and fewer patients received GP follow-up (4.1% versus 16.9%). There was no significant difference in presenting complaints between ECAP and non-ECAP EDs. Most prevalent complaints were trauma (25.7% versus 29.7%), abdominal pain (12.1% versus 10.9%) and general symptoms (7.8% versus 4.8%). The most prevalent ED diagnoses significantly differed with fractures and dislocations (10.8%), sprains and strains (10.4%) and respiratory infections (6.8%) at ECAP EDs versus fractures and dislocations (10.7%), wounds (9.3%) and sprains and strains (8.9%) at non-ECAP EDs.

Conclusion

Compared to non-ECAP EDs, patients at ECAP EDs were older, medical professionals referred more patients and more patients received a hospital admission. We found some small differences in discharge diagnoses between ECAP EDs compared to non-ECAP EDs, but no difference in presented complaints.

Understanding Low-Acuity Visits to the Pediatric Emergency Department

Background

Canadian pediatric emergency department visits are increasing, with a disproportionate increase in low-acuity visits locally (33% of volume in 2008-09, 41% in 2011-12). We sought to understand: 1) presentation patterns and resource implications; 2) parents’ perceptions and motivations; and 3) alternate health care options considered prior to presenting with low-acuity problems.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study at our tertiary pediatric emergency department serving two provinces to explore differences between patients with and without a primary care provider. During four, 2-week study periods over 1 year, parents of low-acuity visits received an anonymous survey. Presentation times, interventions, diagnoses and dispositions were captured on a data collection form linked to the survey by study number.

Results

Parents completed 2,443 surveys (74.1% response rate), with survey-data collection form pairs available for 2,146 visits. Overall, 89.7% of respondents had a primary care provider; 68% were family physicians. Surprisingly, 40% of visits occurred during weekday office hours and 27.3% occurred within 4 hours of symptom onset; 67.5% of those early presenters were for injuries. Few parents sought care from their primary care provider (25%), health information line (20.7%), or urgent care clinic (18.5%); 36% reported that they believed their child’s problem required the emergency department. Forty-five percent required only a history, physical exam and reassurance; only 11% required an intervention not available in an office setting. Patients without a primary care provider were significantly more likely to present during weekday office hours (p = 0.003), have longer symptom duration (p<0.001), and not know of other options (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Many parents seek pediatric emergency department care for low-acuity problems despite their child having a primary care provider. Ensuring timely access to these providers may help reduce pediatric emergency department overuse. Educational initiatives should inform parents about low-acuity problems and where appropriate care can/should be accessed.

Pre-emergency-department care-seeking patterns are associated with the severity of presenting condition for emergency department visit and subsequent adverse events: a timeframe episode analysis

Background

Many patients treated in Emergency Department (ED) visits can be treated at primary or urgent care sectors, despite the fact that a number of ED visitors seek other forms of care prior to an ED visit. However, little is known regarding how the pre-ED activity episodes affect ED visits.

Objectives

We investigated whether care-seeking patterns involve the use of health care services of various types prior to ED visits and examined the associations of these patterns with the severity of the presenting condition for the ED visit (EDVS) and subsequent events.

Methods

This retrospective observational study used administrative data on beneficiaries of the universal health care insurance program in Taiwan. The service type, treatment capacity, and relative diagnosis were used to classify pre-ED visits into 8 care types. Frequent pattern analysis was used to identify sequential care-seeking patterns and to classify 667,183 eligible pre-ED episodes into patterns. Generalized linear models were developed using generalized estimating equations to examine the associations of these patterns with EDVS and subsequent events.

Results

The results revealed 17 care-seeking patterns. The EDVS and likelihood of subsequent events significantly differed among patterns. The ED severity index of patterns differ from patterns seeking directly ED care (coefficients ranged from -0.05 to 0.13), and the odds-ratios for the likelihood of subsequent ED visits and hospitalization ranged from 1.18 to 1.86 and 1.16 to 2.84, respectively.

Conclusions

The pre-ED care-seeking patterns differ in severity of presenting condition and subsequent events that may represent different causes of ED visit. Future health policy maker may adopt different intervention strategies for targeted population to reduce unnecessary ED visit effectively.

Pain management in trauma patients in (pre)hospital based emergency care: current practice versus new guideline

INTRODUCTION

Acute pain in trauma patients in emergency care is still undertreated. Early pain treatment is assumed to effectively reduce pain in patients and improve long-term outcomes. In order to improve pain management in the chain of emergency care, a national evidence-based guideline was developed. The aim of this study was to assess whether current practice is in compliance with the guideline 'Pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care' from the Netherlands Association for Emergency Nurses (in Dutch NVSHV), and to evaluate early and initial pain management for adult trauma patients in emergency care.

METHODS

Chart reviews were conducted in three regions of the Netherlands using electronic patient files of trauma patients from the chain of emergency care. We included one after-hours General Practitioner Co-operation (GPC), one ambulance Emergency Medical Services (EMS), two Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS), and three Emergency Departments (EDs). Organisation of pain management, pain assessment, and pain treatment was examined and compared with national guideline recommendations, including quality indicators.

RESULTS

We assessed a random sample of 1066 electronic patient files. The use of standardised tools to assess pain was registered in zero to 52% of the electronic patient files per organisation. Registration of (non-)pharmacological pain treatment was found in less than half of the files. According to the files, pharmacological pain treatment deviated from the guideline in 73-99% of the files. Time of administration of medication was missing in 73-100%. Reassessment of pain following pain medication was recorded in half of the files by the HEMS, but not in files of the other organisations.

CONCLUSIONS

The (registration of) current pain management in trauma patients in the chain of emergency care varies widely between healthcare organisation, and deviates from national guideline recommendations. Although guideline compliance differs across groups of healthcare professionals, maximum compliance rate with indicators registered is 52%. In order to improve pain management and evaluate its effectiveness, we recommend to improve pain registration in patient files. Furthermore, we advise to identify barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of the national guideline in all emergency care organisations.

On a European collaboration to identify organizational models, potential shortcomings and improvement options in out-of-hours primary health care

Abstract Background: Out-of-hours care (OOHC) provision is an increasingly challenging aspect in the delivery of primary health care services. Although many European countries have implemented organizational models for out-of-hours primary care, which has been traditionally delivered by general practitioners, health care providers throughout Europe are still looking to resolve current challenges in OOHC. It is within this context that the European Research Network for Out-of-Hours Primary Health Care (EurOOHnet) was established in 2010 to investigate the provision of out-of-hours care across European countries, which have diverse political and health care systems. In this paper, we report on the EurOOHnet work related to OOHC organizational models, potential shortcomings and improvement options in out-of-hours primary health care. Needs assessment: The EurOOHnet expert working party proposed that models for OOHC should be reviewed to evaluate the availability and accessibility of OOHC for patients while also seeking ways to make the delivery of care more satisfying for service providers.

OUTCOMES

To move towards resolution of OOHC challenges in primary care, as the first stage, the EurOOHnet expert working party identified the following key needs: clear and uniform definitions of the different OOHC models between different countries; adequate-ideally transnational-definitions of urgency levels and corresponding data; and educational programmes for nurses and doctors (e.g. in the use of a standardized triage system for OOHC). Finally, the need for a modern system of data transfer between different health care providers in regular care and providers in OOHC to prevent information loss was identified.

Hospital-integrated general practice: a promising way to manage walk-in patients in emergency departments

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The inappropriate use and overcrowding of emergency departments (EDs) by walk-in patients are well-known problems in many countries. The current study aimed to determine whether ambulatory walk-in patients could be treated more efficiently in a new hospital-integrated general practice (HGP) for emergency care services compared to a traditional ED.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-post comparison before and after the implementation of a new HGP. Participants were walk-in patients attending the ED of a city hospital in Zurich. Main outcome measures were differences in total process time, time intervals between stages of care and diagnostic resources used.

RESULTS

The median process time from admission to discharge was 120 minutes in the ED [interquartile range (IQR): 80-165] versus 60 minutes in the HGP (IQR: 40-90) (P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of receiving any additional diagnostics was 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.06-3.27; P = 0.032) for ED doctors versus general practitioners (GPs) when controlling for patients' age, sex and injury-related medical problems.

CONCLUSION

The HGP is an efficient way to manage walk-in patients with regard to process time and utilization of additional diagnostic resources. The involvement of GPs in the HGPs should be considered as a promising model to overcome the inappropriate use of resources in EDs for walk-in patients who can be treated by ambulatory care.

Suitability of emergency department attenders to be assessed in primary care: survey of general practitioner agreement in a random sample of triage records analysed in a service evaluation project

OBJECTIVES

To assess the proportion of emergency department (ED) attendances that would be suitable for primary care and the inter-rater reliability of general practitioner (GP) assessment of primary care suitability.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Survey of GPs' agreement of suitability for primary care on a random anonymised sample of all ED patients attending over a 1-month period.

SETTING

ED of a UK Hospital serving a population of 600 000.

METHOD

Four GPs independently used data extracted from clinical notes to rate the appropriateness for management in primary care as well as need for investigations, specialist review or admission. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of patients that GPs considered suitable for primary care management was 43% (range 38-47%). The κ for agreement was 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64) and 0.47(95% CI 0.38 to 0.59). In patients deemed not suitable for primary care, GPs were more likely to determine the need for specialist review (relative risks (RR)=3.5, 95% CI 3.0 to 4.2, p<0.001) and admission (RR=3.9, 95% CI 3.2 to 4.7, p<0.001). In patients assessed as suitable for primary care, GPs would initiate investigations in 51% of cases. Consensus over primary care appropriateness was higher for paediatric than for adult attenders.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients attending ED could be managed by GPs, including those requiring investigations at triage. A stronger agreement among GPs over place of care may be seen for paediatric than for adult attenders. More effective signposting of patients presenting with acute or urgent problems and supporting a greater role for primary care in relieving the severe workflow pressures in ED in the UK are potential solutions.

The impact on emergency department utilization and patient flows after integrating with a general practitioner cooperative: an observational study

Introduction. A new model, an emergency care access point (ECAP) for after-hours emergency care, is emerging in The Netherlands. This study assessed the effect on emergency department (ED) utilization and patient flows. Methods. Routinely recorded clinical ED patient data, covering a six-year period, was collected. Segmented regression analysis was used to analyze after-hours changes over time. Results. 59.182 patients attended the ED before the start of the ECAP and 51.513 patients after, a decrease of 13%. Self-referred ED patients decreased 99.5% (OR 0.003; 95% CI 0.002–0.004). Referred patients increased by 213.4% and ED hospital admissions increased by 20.2%. A planned outpatient follow-up increased by 5.8% (OR 1.968 95% CI 1.870–2.071). The latter changed from fewer contacts to more contacts (OR 1.015 95% CI 1.013–1.017). Consultations at the regional genereral practitioner cooperative (GPC) increased by 26.0% (183.782 versus 232.246). Conclusion. ECAP implementation resulted in a decrease in ED utilization, a near absence of self-referring patients, and a higher probability of hospital admission and clinical follow-up. This suggests either an increase of ED patients with a higher acuity or a lower threshold of admitting referred patients compared to self-referred patients. Overall, increased collaboration with after-hours primary care and emergency care seemed to optimize ED utilization.