Characteristics of patients presenting to an after-hours clinic: results of a MAGNET analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyle R. Turner ◽  
Christopher Pearce ◽  
Madeleine Borg ◽  
Adam McLeod ◽  
Marianne Shearer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Health Seeking ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Gp Services ◽  
After Hours ◽  
Delivery Strategies

After-hours access to general practice (GP) is critical to supporting accessibility and reducing emergency department demand. To understand who utilises after-hours GP services, this study examined the characteristics of presentations to an Eastern Melbourne after-hours clinic between 2005 and 2014. Descriptive analyses of patient and presentation characteristics, diagnoses, medications and pathology were conducted. Across the study period, 39.1% of presentations to the clinic (N=64,800) were by patients under 18 years of age. Females were found to attend more often than males, and nearly 79% of patients attended only once. The most common diagnoses were respiratory system diseases (13.4%), gastrointestinal system diseases (12.6%) and eye and ear problems (11.6%). Antibacterial medications accounted for over half (53.0%) of all prescriptions, with 34% of antibiotics prescribed to patients under 18 years of age. Seasonal variation in GP demand was also observed. Presenting patients differed from the wider GP patient population, with more young patients, and a higher proportion of prescriptions for antibacterial medications compared to other predominantly non-after-hours practices. Further research is required to understand the health-seeking, decision-making of patients who utilise after-hours GPs over predominantly non-after-hours primary care services, to inform service promotion and delivery strategies.

Supplier-induced demand for urgent after-hours primary care services

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1594-1608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Longden ◽  
Jane Hall ◽  
Kees van Gool
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Induced Demand ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
After Hours

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Freya Davies ◽  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Pippa Anderson ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesWorldwide, 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.DesignRapid realist literature review.SettingEmergency departments.Inclusion criteriaArticles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments.AimTo 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.ResultsNinety-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.ConclusionsMultiple 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 numberCRD42017069741.

scholarly journals Taxonomy of the form and function of primary care services in or alongside emergency departments: concepts paper

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 625-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Janet Brandling ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Matthew Cooke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Routine Data ◽  
Emergency Department Patient ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
And Function

Primary care services in or alongside emergency departments look and function differently and are described using inconsistent terminology. Research to determine effectiveness of these models is hampered by outdated classification systems, limiting the opportunity for data synthesis to draw conclusions and inform decision-making and policy. We used findings from a literature review, a national survey of Type 1 emergency departments in England and Wales, staff interviews, other routine data sources and discussions from two stakeholder events to inform the taxonomy. We categorised the forms inside or outside the emergency department: inside primary care services may be integrated with emergency department patient flow or may run parallel to that activity; outside services may be offered on site or off site. We then describe a conceptual spectrum of integration: identifying constructs that influence how the services function—from being closer to an emergency medicine service or to usual primary care. This taxonomy provides a basis for future evaluation of service models that will comprise the evidence base to inform policy-making in this domain. Commissioners and service providers can consider these constructs in characterising and designing services depending on local circumstances and context.

scholarly journals 736. Delays in Malaria Recognition and Door to Anti-malarial Time in a South London Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S466-S466
Author(s):  
Nisha Patel ◽  
Tomasz Materski ◽  
Elisa Gonzalez ◽  
Solomon Russom ◽  
Gurjinder Sandhu
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
African Countries ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Travel History ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background The prompt recognition and treatment of Plasmodium falciparum is necessary to prevent death. We reviewed data from a cohort of patients presenting with malaria to Kings College Hospital NHS Trust, London. Methods Retrospective review of electronic records and drug charts of patients diagnosed with malaria from Jan 2019- March 2021. Results 109 cases of malaria were identified representing travellers from 11 Sub-Saharan African countries: Nigeria(38%), Sierra Leone(33%), Ivory Coast(10%). The age range varied from 4 to 76 years with a mean of 44, 66% of the cohort was male. 22 cases occurred during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The commonest symptoms were Fever (97%), Headache (92%) and malaise (72%). P. falciparum was present in 99% cases. A travel history was taken in 94% of cases. Malaria was considered by the first clinician in 82% of cases with the second highest differential being a viral illness. In 6 cases, it took 4 to 11 medical reviews before malaria was considered. 29 patients met the UK criteria for severe malaria. Door to antimalarial time varied from 1 to 128 hours, with a median of 7.4 hours. 46% of the cohort received intravenous Artesunate as their first antimalarial. Extreme delays occurred were clinicians did not consider malaria, patients had negative films or a patient did not declare a travel history when asked. 1 patient died of cerebral malaria with a door to needle time of 2hr 3min. Where a reason for delay is documented, drug availability represented the highest cause with mean delay from prescribing antimalarial to giving antimalarial of 2.7 hours. There was no difference in door to antimalarial administration during the COVID-19 Pandemic, but patients did have a delay in presentation to hospital from onset of symptoms, mean 6.2 days pre-pandemic, 10.5 days during pandemic, this was not statistically significant (P= 0.198). 3 patients presenting during the Pandemic had covid-19 swabs prior to admission and 10 had attended primary care services. Number of days between onset of malaria symptoms and presentation to the Emergency Department Box plot demonstrating that patients were waiting longer post symptom onset to access care in the Emergency Department. 3 patients had covid swabs in the community and 10 accessed care through their primary care physician. Conclusion Our data show that malaria is being considered early in the emergency department however there remain significant delays in administration of treatment. In 6 cases where malaria was not considered early there were delays in diagnosis of up to 5 days. An audit cycle will be completed with the aim of reducing door to antimalarial time. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals LO087: Emergency department patients’ connection to primary care providers: reasons for lack of connection

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S60-S60
Author(s):  
L. Krebs ◽  
S.W. Kirkland ◽  
K. Crick ◽  
C. Villa-Roel ◽  
A. Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Family Physician ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Access To Primary Care

Introduction: Some non-urgent/low-acuity Emergency Department (ED) presentations are considered convenience visits and potentially avoidable with improved access to primary care services. This study surveyed patients who presented to the ED and explored their self-reported reasons and barriers for not being connected to a primary care provider (PCP). Methods: Patients aged 17 years and older were randomly selected from electronic registration records at three urban EDs in Edmonton, Alberta (AB), Canada. Following initial triage, stabilization, and verbal informed consent, patients completed a 47-item questionnaire. Data from the survey were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset consisting of ED and demographic information. The questionnaire collected information on patient characteristics, their connection to a PCP, and patients' reasons for not having a PCP. Results: Of the 2144 eligible patients, 1408 (65.7%) surveys were returned and 1402 (65.4%) were completed. The majority of patients (74.4%) presenting to the ED reported having a family physician; however, the ‘closeness’ of the connection to their family physician varied greatly among ED patients with the most recent family physician visit ranging from 1 hour before ED presentation to 45 years prior. Approximately 25% of low acuity ED patients reported no connection with a family physician. Reasons for a lack of PCP connection included: prior physician retired, left, or died (19.8%), they had never tried to find one (19.2%), they had recently moved to Alberta (18.0%), and they were unable to find one (16.5%). Conclusion: A surprisingly high proportion of ED patients (25.6%) have no identified PCP. Patients had a variety of reasons for not having a family physician. These need to be understood and addressed in order for primary care access to successfully contribute to diverting non-urgent, low acuity presentations from the ED.

Commissioning primary care services: concepts and practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 63-82
Author(s):  
Imelda McDermott ◽  
Kath Checkland ◽  
Anna Coleman ◽  
Lynsey Warwick-Giles ◽  
Stephen Peckham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Community Services ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
History Of ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Gp Services ◽  
Broad Policy ◽  
Recent Policy

Chapter 5 reports research on the more recent policy of allowing CCGs to commission primary care services. In 2014 CCGs were invited to volunteer to take on responsibility for commissioning services from their member GP practices in addition to their wider responsibilities for commissioning acute and community services. In this chapter we explore the history of primary care commissioning and financing in England, and discuss the broad policy objectives which underpinned this significant change in CCGs role and scope. These objectives include the need to move to a ‘place-based’ approach to commissioning, and the need for a more effective linkage between the commissioning of primary and secondary care services in order to support movement of services into the community. Over time, most CCGs have moved to take on full delegated responsibility for commissioning GP services, and have established functioning primary care commissioning committees, with little evidence of significant problems associated with conflicts of interest. The development of local additional ‘quality contracts’ and investment in infrastructure and premises have been important issues, with few CCGs seeking to establish larger scale contractual changes. There have been significant local legacy issues in some areas relating to unclear contracts and poor handover of responsibilities from NHS England. The current legislation, under which statutory responsibility for commissioning primary care services remains with NHS England and is delegated rather than transferred to CCGs, presented some problems, particularly for those CCGs who wished to work together across a broader geographical footprint.

scholarly journals 191 A classification of primary care pathways in emergency departments: a multi-methods study comprising cross-sectional survey; site visits with observations; semi-structured and informal interviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 841.2-842
Author(s):  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Davies Freya ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Thomas Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Front Door ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundWe aim to describe and classify the predominant streaming pathways on arrival in Emergency Departments (EDs) in England and Wales and explain how they operate in different models of emergency department primary care services. Recent policy has encouraged a method whereby nurses stream from the emergency department front door to GPs working in a separate GP service operating within or alongside an ED. However, there is variation in methods of assessing and streaming patients on arrival at EDs. Conflated terminology causes difficulties in assessing relative performance, improving quality or gathering evidence about safety, clinical effectiveness. Our findings present a new classification of current streaming pathways from emergency departments to primary care services.Methods/DesignWe used a multi-stage method approach, including an online survey completed by 77 EDs across England & Wales, interviews with 21 clinical leads, and finally, undertaking case studies of 13 EDs. Qualitative data were triangulated and analysed using a framework analysis approach.Results/ConclusionsThe most common ED pathways to primary care services were: front door streaming before ED registration; streaming inside the ED; or without streaming but GPs selecting patients. Pathways were often adapted, to suit local circumstances such as department layout, patient demand levels, skill mix and interests of GPs practitioners and the accessibility of community primary care services. Pathways to redirect patients with non-urgent primary care problems to community primary care services were also used, with local variation in protocols based on staffing, patient demand and links to community primary care services. Local clinical leads and managers need to consider which pathway(s) may best suit their local context and needs. Consistency of terminology used to describe pathways between EDs and primary care services is necessary for multi-site evaluation, quality improvement and performance measurement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document