It has long been recognised that certain Accident and Emergency (A&E) attendees would be better served by other parts of the healthcare system, such as general practitioners (GP) or out-of-hours services. For some years, the Leicester Royal Infirmary has used a modified version of the Manchester Triage System, which prioritises and categorises all patients attending A&E, to identify those
... [Show full abstract] patients not in need of A&E care. As part of an ongoing review of A&E working practices, it was decided to perform a formal audit to determine whether GPs agreed with this practice and whether the patients followed the advice given by A&E triage staff and were satisfied with the service. A total of 425 patients were included in the audit; 60% of patients had not suffered any history of trauma, 116 patients (27%) returned their questionnaires, 80 patients (69%) were satisfied with the advice given in A&E. The main comments made by the 36 dissatisfied patients (31%) were a sense of frustration with getting their problem solved immediately. Sixtythree percent of patients felt that faced with a similar problem they would access primary care, rather than attend A&E. A total of 251 patients were seen by the GP for the same problem and there were no major differences between the triage nurse's and the GP's assessment. However, in 37 cases, the patients had seen their GP for an entirely unrelated reason. From feedback received when carrying out the audit, GPs apeared satisfied with the current system but, due to limitations of the study, this cannot be confirmed. Two of the main recommendations of the audit were to improve patient information at triage and for quarterly note reviews of Category 5 patients to be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, which should include a GP.