scholarly journals Nurse telephone triage in out of hours primary care: a pilot study

BMJ ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 314 (7075) ◽  
pp. 198-198 ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Edmond Brasseur ◽  
Allison Gilbert ◽  
Anne-Françoise Donneau ◽  
Justine Monseur ◽  
Alexandre Ghuysen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Jennifer S Johnstone ◽  
Michael J Murphy

Background Communicating abnormal results to requesting clinicians is an essential part of clinical authorisation. Guidance from the Royal College of Pathologists on communication of critical/unexpected results is issued as ‘advice to pathologists’. The 2017 guidelines advise rapid communication of serum potassium results ≤2.5 mmol/L and ≥6.5 mmol/L. Little is known about what happens after the results have been communicated. We wished to establish answers to the following questions: Are phoned results acted on? If so, when? What is the outcome of any action taken? Methods A prospective study of primary care potassium results authorised out of hours was undertaken. Potassium requests from primary care were retrieved from the laboratory information management system. The potassium result was recorded, along with other data. Data were analysed for potassium results that were validated out of hours (18:00 h–08:00 h). Results Over six months, 220 potassium results <3.1 mmol/L and >5.9 mmol/L from primary care were validated out of hours. A subset of these (27) were phoned to the general practice out of hours ‘hub’, and 16 patients referred to hospital out of hours, on account of the potassium results. The remaining potassium results phoned out of hours were acted on subsequently. Conclusions Critical potassium results were phoned urgently and are acted on, although not always out of hours. For potassium results phoned out of hours, the most frequent action was to refer to hospital out of hours. Different actions occurred for similar potassium results, reflecting the fact that actions taken and their urgency depend on the patient, the clinician and the practice policy for handling results.


2016 ◽  
Vol 66 (650) ◽  
pp. e667-e673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Huibers ◽  
Grete Moth ◽  
Anders H Carlsen ◽  
Morten B Christensen ◽  
Peter Vedsted

2021 ◽  
pp. emermed-2020-209649
Author(s):  
Tessa Jansen ◽  
Karin Hek ◽  
François G Schellevis ◽  
Anton E Kunst ◽  
Robert A Verheij

BackgroundTelephone triage is used to facilitate efficient and adequate acute care allocation, for instance in out-of-hours primary care services (OPCSs). Remote assessment of health problems is challenging and could be impeded by a patient’s ambiguous formulation of his or her healthcare need. Socioeconomically vulnerable patients may experience more difficulty in expressing their healthcare need. We aimed to assess whether income differences exist in the patient’s presented symptoms, assessed urgency and allocation of follow-up care in OPCS.MethodData were derived from Nivel Primary Care Database encompassing electronic health record data of 1.3 million patients from 28 OPCSs in 2017 in the Netherlands. These were linked to sociodemographic population registry data. Multilevel logistic regression analyses (contacts clustered in patients), adjusted for patient characteristics (eg, age, sex), were conducted to study associations of symptoms, urgency assessment and follow-up care with patients’ income (standardised for household size as socioeconomic status (SES) indicator).ResultsThe most frequently presented symptoms deduced during triage slightly differed across SES groups, with a larger relative share of trauma in the high-income groups. No SES differences were observed in urgency assessment. After triage, low income was associated with a higher probability of receiving telephone advice and home visits, and fewer consultations at the OPCS.ConclusionsSES differences in the patient’s presented symptom and in follow-up in OPCS suggest that the underlying health status and the ability to express care needs affect the telephone triage process . Further research should focus on opportunities to better tailor the telephone triage process to socioeconomically vulnerable patients.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 309-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Huibers ◽  
Paul Giesen ◽  
Marleen Smits ◽  
Henk Mokkink ◽  
Richard Grol ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document