PP18 Is there provider induced demand at emergency departments with primary care services? Patient, local and wider system factors described to influence demand for primary care in emergency departments: realist evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. A8.2-A8
Author(s):  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Andrew Carson Stevens ◽  
Adrian Edwards ◽  
Thomas Hughes ◽  
...  

BackgroundEvidence from evaluations of emergency departments (EDs) with co-located primary care services suggests that they influence additional demand for non-urgent care (provider-induced demand). In a realist review of the literature on the effects of primary care services in EDs we proposed a theory that when primary care services are distinct at an ED they may encourage additional primary care demand and when primary care clinicians work indistinctly in the ED there is no additional demand. We aimed to explore evidence for this theory and explain contexts, mechanisms and outcomes that influence such demand.MethodsWe used realist evaluation methodology and carried out observations of key processes. We interviewed 23 patients, 21 ED clinical directors, 26 other ED staff members and 26 GPs at 13 EDs (England & Wales). Field notes and audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed by creating context, mechanism and outcome configurations to refine and develop theories relating to provider induced demand.ResultsEDs with distinct primary care services were perceived to attract more demand for primary care than EDs where primary care clinicians worked indistinctly because the primary care service was visible, widely known about, enabled direct access, and received NHS 111 referrals. Other influences on demand were patients’ experiences of accessing primary care, the capacity for urgent care in the community, location of the ED and public transport links, service design and developments (new buildings, renovations) and population characteristics (unfamiliarity with local healthcare services, not registered with a GP or different cultural perceptions of seeking health care).ConclusionsA range of patient, local-system and wider-system factors contribute to additional demand at an ED with co-located primary care services. Our findings can inform providers and policymakers in developing strategies to limit the effect of these influences on additional demand.

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 832.1-832
Author(s):  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Delyth Price ◽  
Julie Hepburn ◽  
Barbara Harrington ◽  
Bridie Evans ◽  
...  

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundWe aim to explain the contexts and mechanisms that influence patients’ motivations and expectations when accessing urgent care at an ED and their acceptability of being streamed to a primary care clinician working in or alongside the ED. Recent healthcare policy has encouraged the implementation of primary care services in or alongside emergency departments whereby patients with low acuity illness are streamed to a primary care clinician after a brief initial assessment. Our findings describe patients’ motivations, expectations, and acceptability of primary care streaming and their level of satisfaction.Methods/DesignWe recruited 24 patients to be interviewed after visiting an emergency department for one of five low acuity complaints. 12 patients were streamed to ED clinicians and 11 were streamed to primary care clinicians. We carried out semi-structured realist style interviews by telephone and carried out a realist analysis to create theories to explain motivations to attend, acceptability of streaming and satisfaction with care.Results/ConclusionsMotivations for attending the ED included patients’ perception of their complaint as an emergency which needed immediate treatment, and previous experience of receiving care at the ED. Acceptability of primary care streaming was related to patients’ past experiences accessing primary care services, their trust in initial assessment processes and their expectation to be seen by ‘expert clinicians’ on the ‘same day’. When patients’ expectations of waiting times, level of investigations and general quality of care were met or exceeded, they reported acceptability to being streamed to a primary care clinician and were satisfied with their care. Understanding why patients attend the ED for urgent care needs and their experience of primary care streaming is essential to addressing increasing ED demand and improving efficiency.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1594-1608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Longden ◽  
Jane Hall ◽  
Kees van Gool

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 106 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 937-941
Author(s):  
Kenneth D. Mandl ◽  
Charles J. Homer ◽  
Oren Harary ◽  
Jonathan A. Finkelstein

Objective. To determine the impact of reduced postpartum length of stay (LOS) on primary care services use. Methods. Design: Retrospective quasiexperimental study, comparing 3 periods before and 1 period after introducing an intervention and adjusting for time trends.Setting: A managed care plan.Intervention: A reduced obstetrical LOS program (ROLOS), offering enhanced education and services.Participants: mother-infant dyads, delivered during 4 time periods: February through May 1992, 1993, and 1994, before ROLOS, and 1995, while ROLOS was in effect.Independent Measures: Pre-ROLOS or the post-ROLOS year.Outcome Measures: Telephone calls, visits, and urgent care events during the first 3 weeks postpartum summed as total utilization events. Results. Before ROLOS, LOS decreased gradually (from 51.6 to 44.3 hours) and after, sharply to 36.5 hours. Although primary care use did not increase before ROLOS, utilization for dyads increased during ROLOS. Before ROLOS, there were between 2.37 and 2.72 utilization events per dyad; after, there were 4.60. Well-child visits increased slightly to .98 visits per dyad, but urgent visits did not. Conclusion. This program resulted in shortened stays and more primary care use. There was no increase in infant urgent primary care utilization. Early discharge programs that incorporate and reimburse for enhanced ambulatory services may be safe for infants; these findings should not be extrapolated to mandatory reduced LOS initiatives without enhancement of care.


This chapter focuses on urgent care centers as a unique innovation that has been in the making for the last 30 years. Urgent care centers provide unscheduled or walk-in care, are open for extended hours on weeknights and weekends, and provide services that go beyond what primary care physicians provide, such as occupational medicine, laboratory tests, and fracture care such as splinting and casting, with some providing intravenous fluids, routine immunizations, and primary care services. This chapter describes in-depth the history and growth, operations, and stakeholders of urgent care centers, and overviews the research that relates to quality of care, costs, and patient satisfaction in these centers. Given the expanding industry, strong growth in company numbers, greater employment opportunities, and rising per-capita usage of urgent care centers, the author argues that the urgent care industry is in the growth phase of its life cycle.


2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (686) ◽  
pp. e595-e604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Hammersley ◽  
Eddie Donaghy ◽  
Richard Parker ◽  
Hannah McNeilly ◽  
Helen Atherton ◽  
...  

BackgroundGrowing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.AimTo explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.Design and settingComparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.MethodPrimary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.ResultsOf the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.ConclusionVC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less ‘information rich’ than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 672-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Ablard ◽  
Colin O’Keeffe ◽  
Shammi Ramlakhan ◽  
Suzanne M Mason

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp19X703277
Author(s):  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Niro Siriwardena ◽  
Adrian Edwards

BackgroundNew healthcare service models are being introduced to help manage increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems including the provision of primary care services in or alongside emergency departments. There is little research evidence to guide decisions about how service models can be most effective and safe.AimFocusing on diagnostic error, the aim was to learn why errors occur to identify priority interventions.MethodTwo data sources were used to identify diagnostic error reports including: coroners’ reports to prevent future deaths; and the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A cross-sectional, mixed-methods theory-generating study which used a multi-axial PISA classification system based on the recursive model for incident analysis, was carried out.ResultsNine Coroners’ reports (from a total of 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013–2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005–2015) were identified describing diagnostic error with learning relevant to primary care services in or alongside emergency departments. Clinical presentations included musculoskeletal injuries; unwell infants; headaches; and chest pains. Findings highlighted a difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the primary care service; underinvestigation; misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; underuse of safeguarding protocols; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the services.ConclusionPriority areas to minimise risk of diagnostic error when primary care services are located in or alongside emergency departments include clinical decision support to triage and stream patients to the appropriate care setting; contextualised, workplace-based education and training for primary care staff; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and primary care services.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Freya Davies ◽  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Pippa Anderson ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
...  

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 625-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Cooper ◽  
Michelle Edwards ◽  
Janet Brandling ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Matthew Cooke ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document