Does the presence of general practitioners in emergency departments affect quality and safety in English NHS hospitals? A retrospective observational study

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.

The Constrained-Disorder Principle Assists in Overcoming Significant Challenges in Digital Health: Moving from "Nice to Have" to Mandatory Systems

The success of artificial intelligence depends on whether it can penetrate the boundaries of evidence-based medicine, the lack of policies, and the resistance of medical professionals to its use. The failure of digital health to meet expectations requires rethinking some of the challenges faced. We discuss some of the most significant challenges faced by patients, physicians, payers, pharmaceutical companies, and health systems in the digital world. The goal of healthcare systems is to improve outcomes. Assisting in diagnosing, collecting data, and simplifying processes is a "nice to have" tool, but it is not essential. Many of these systems have yet to be shown to improve outcomes. Current outcome-based expectations and economic constraints make "nice to have," "assists," and "ease processes" insufficient. Complex biological systems are defined by their inherent disorder, bounded by dynamic boundaries, as described by the constrained disorder principle (CDP). It provides a platform for correcting systems' malfunctions by regulating their degree of variability. A CDP-based second-generation artificial intelligence system provides solutions to some challenges digital health faces. Therapeutic interventions are held to improve outcomes with these systems. In addition to improving clinically meaningful endpoints, CDP-based second-generation algorithms ensure patient and physician engagement and reduce the health system's costs.

Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available.

RESULTS

There was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISCRTN5178022.