Primary care professionals providing non-urgent care in hospital emergency departments

Primary Health Care, Oxford University, Rm 204 Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus Headington, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX37LF.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 11/2012; 11(11):CD002097. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002097.pub3
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND: In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long-waits and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has been to provide primary care services alongside or within hospital EDs for patients with non-urgent problems. It is not known, however, how this impacts the quality of patient care, the utilisation of hospital resources, or if it is cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of locating primary care professionals in the hospital ED to provide care for patients with non-urgent health problems, compared with care provided by regular Emergency Physicians (EPs), SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialized register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library, 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to March 21 2012); EMBASE (1980 to April 28 2011); CINAHL (1980 to April 28 2011); PsychINFO (1967 to April 28 2011); Sociological Abstracts (1952 to April 28 2011); ASSIA (1987 to April 28 2011); SSSCI (1945 to April 28 2011); HMIC (1979 to April 28 2011), sources of unpublished literature, reference lists of included papers and relevant systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for any published or unpublished studies, and hand searched ED conference abstracts from the last three years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of introducing primary care professionals to hospital EDs to attend to non-urgent patients, as compared to the care provided by regular EPs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each included study. We contacted authors of included studies to obtain additional data. Dichotomous outcomes are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes are presented as mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. Pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Three non randomised controlled studies involving a total of 11 203 patients, 16 General Practioners (GPs), and 52 EPs, were included. These studies evaluated the effects of introducing GPs to provide care to patients with non-urgent problems in the ED, as compared to EPs for outcomes such as resource use. The quality of evidence for all outcomes in this review was low, primarily due to the non-randomised design of included studies.The outcomes investigated were similar across studies; however there was high heterogeneity (I(2)>86%). Differences across studies included the triage system used, the level of expertise and experience of the medical practitioners and type of hospital (urban teaching, suburban community hospital).Two of the included studies report that GPs used significantly fewer healthcare resources than EPs, with fewer blood tests (RR 0.22; 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.33; N=4641; RR 0.35; 95%CI 0.29 to 0.42; N=4684), x-rays (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.54; N=4641; RR 0.77 95% CI 0.72 to 0.83; N=4684), admissions to hospital (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58; N=4641; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; N=4684) and referrals to specialists (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.63; N=4641; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.73; N=4684). One of the two studies reported no statistically significant difference in the number of prescriptions made by GPs compared with EPs, (RR 0.95 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; N=4641), while the other showed that GPs prescribed significantly more medications than EPs (RR 1.45 95% CI 1.35 to 1.56; N=4684). The results from these two studies showed marginal cost savings from introducing GPs in hospital EDs.The third study (N=1878) failed to identify a significant difference in the number of blood tests ordered (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.2), x-rays (RR 1.07; 95%CI 0.99 to 1.15), or admissions to hospital (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.76), but reported a significantly greater number of referrals to specialists (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33) and prescriptions (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) made by GPs as compared with EPs.No data were reported on patient wait-times, length of hospital stay, or patient outcomes, including adverse effects or mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence from the three included studies is weak, as results are disparate and neither safety nor patient outcomes have been examined. There is insufficient evidence upon which to draw conclusions for practice or policy regarding the effectiveness and safety of care provided to non-urgent patients by GPs versus EPs in the ED to mitigate problems of overcrowding, wait-times and patient flow.

21 Reads
  • Source
    • "A large proportion of the increase in ED use in developed countries may be due to wasteful and inefficient inappropriate visits [14] which, one estimate suggests, may result in overuse costing $38 billion a year in the USA [15,16], with 7-89% of ED visits in different countries reportedly for non-urgent problems susceptible to less specialized care [17]. Factors influencing this situation may include inconsistent definitions of appropriateness and non-urgent triage. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Spain, primary healthcare (PHC) referrals for diagnostic procedures are subject to long waiting-times, and physicians and patients often use the emergency department (ED) as a shortcut. We aimed to determine whether patients evaluated at a hospital outpatient quick diagnosis unit (QDU) who were referred to ED from 12 PHC centers could have been directly referred to QDU, thus avoiding ED visits. As a secondary objective, we determined the proportion of QDU patients who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting. We carried out a cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of patients with potentially serious conditions attended by the QDU from December 2007 to December 2012. We established 2 groups of patients: 1) patients referred from PHC to QDU (PHC-QDU group) and 2) patients referred from PHC to ED, then to QDU (PHC-ED-QDU group). Two observers assessed the appropriateness/inappropriateness of each referral using a scoring system. The interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the dependent variable 'ED referral'. We evaluated 1186 PHC-QDU and 1004 PHC-ED-QDU patients and estimated that 93.1% of PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU. In contrast, 96% of PHC-QDU patients were found to be appropriately referred to QDU first. The agreement for PHC-QDU referrals (PHC-QDU group) was rated as excellent ([greek small letter kappa] = 0.81), while it was rated as good for PHC-ED referrals (PHC-ED-QDU group) ([greek small letter kappa] = 0.75). The mean waiting-time for the first QDU visit was longer in PHC-QDU (4.8 days) than in PHC-ED-QDU (2.6 days) patients (P = .001). On multivariate analysis, anemia (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.49-4.55, P < .001), rectorrhagia (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.10-3.77, P = .01) and febrile syndrome (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.33-4.12, P = .002) were independent factors associated with ED referral. Nearly one-fifth of all QDU patients were found who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting. Most PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU from PHC, avoiding the inconvenience of the ED visit. A stricter definition of QDU evaluation criteria may be needed to improve and hasten PHC referrals.
    BMC Family Practice 04/2014; 15(1):75. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-15-75 · 1.67 Impact Factor

  • International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 01/2013; 11(3):206-207. DOI:10.1111/1744-1609.12032
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health reforms in many countries affect the scope and nature of primary care. General Practitioners (GPs) are expected to spend more time developing public health, preventive health care, coordination of care and teamwork. We aimed to explore which professional activities GPs consider to be meaningful and how they would like to prioritise tasks. In a cross sectional online survey 3,270 GPs were invited to consider twenty different activities in general practice. They were asked to rate each of them on a Likert scale anchored from 1 (not meaningful) to 5 (very meaningful). They then selected three activities from the item list on which they would like to spend more time and three activities on which they would like to spend less time. We used multinomial logistic regression to explore associations between the GPs’ preferences for time spent on preventive health care activities and age, gender and practice characteristics. Approximately 40% (n=1,308) responded. The most meaningful activities were handling common symptoms and complaints (94% scored 4 or 5), chronic somatic diseases (93%), terminal care (80%), chronic psychiatric diseases (77%), risk conditions (76%) and on call emergency services (70%). In terms of priority the same items prevailed except that GPs would like to spend less time on emergency services. Items with low priority were health certificates, practice administration, meetings with local health authorities, medically unexplained symptoms, addiction medicine, follow up of people certified unfit for work, psychosocial problems, preventive health clinics for children and school health services. In multivariate regression models physician and practice characteristics explained no more than 10% of the variability in the GPs’ preferences for time spent on preventive health care services. The GPs found diagnosis and treatment of diseases most meaningful. Their priorities were partly at odds with those of the health authorities and policy makers.
    BMC Family Practice 03/2013; 14(1):41. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-14-41 · 1.67 Impact Factor
Show more