Dataset Information

Perspectives on the underlying drivers of urgent and emergency care reconfiguration in Ireland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is an increasing tendency to reconfigure acute hospital care towards a more centralised and specialised model, particularly for complex care conditions. Although centralisation is presented as "evidence-based", the relevant studies are often challenged by groups which hold perspectives and values beyond those implicit in the literature. This study investigated stakeholder perspectives on the rationale for the reconfiguration of urgent and emergency care in Ireland. Specifically, it considered the hypothesis that individuals from different stakeholder groups would endorse different positions in relation to the motivation for, and goals of, reconfiguration.

Methods

Documentary analysis of policy documents was used to identify official justifications for change. Semi-structured interviews with 175 purposively sampled stakeholders explored their perspectives on the rationale for reconfiguration.

Results

While there was some within-group variation, internal and external stakeholders generally vocalised different lines of argument. Clinicians and management in the internal stakeholder group proposed arguments in favour of reconfiguration based on efficiency and safety claims. External stakeholders, including hospital campaigners and local political representatives expressed arguments that focused on access to care. A "voter" argument, focused on the role of local politicians in determining the outcome of reconfiguration planning, was mentioned by both internal and external stakeholders, often in a critical fashion.

Conclusion

Our study adds to an emerging literature on the interaction between a technocratic approach to health system planning advocated by clinicians and health service managers, and the experiential "non-expert" claims of the public and patients.

SUBMITTER: Droog E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6032929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA key challenge for most systems is how to provide effective access to urgent and emergency care across rural and urban populations. Tensions about the placement and scope of hospital emergency services are longstanding in Irish political life and there has been recent reform to centralise hospital services in some regions. The focus of this paper is a system approach to examine the geographic variation in resourcing and utilisation of such care across GP practices, out-of-hours care, ambulance services, Emergency Departments and Local Injury Units in Ireland.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional study design to evaluate variation in resource allocation by aggregating geographic funding to various elements of the urgent and emergency care system and assessing patterns in hospital resource utilisation across the population. Expenditure, staffing, access and activity data were gathered from government sources, individual facilities and service providers, health professional bodies, private firms and central statistics. Data on costs and activity in 2014 are collated and presented at both county and regional levels. Analyses focus on resources spent on urgent and emergency care across geographic areas, the role of population concentration in allocation, the relationship between pre-hospital spending and in-hospital spending, and the utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources by residents of each county.ResultsAn array of funding mechanisms exists, resulting in a fragmented approach to the resourcing of urgent and emergency care. There are large differences in spending per capita at the county-level, ranging from between €50 and €200 per capita; however, these are less pronounced regionally. Distribution of hospital emergency care resources is highly skewed to the North East of the country, and away from the recently reconfigured South and Mid-West regions.ConclusionsThis analysis advances the traditional approach of evaluating individual services or hospital resourcing. There are notable differences in utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources at the regional level, indicating that populations within those regions which have been reconfigured have lower utilisation of hospital resources. There is a clear case for more integration in decision-making around funding and consideration of key principles, such as equity, to guide that process.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this project is to determine the patterns, decision-making processes and parental preferences associated with unscheduled paediatric healthcare utilisation in Ireland. Unscheduled paediatric healthcare is outpatient care provided within primary care settings by general practitioners (GPs), emergency departments (EDs) located in paediatric and general hospitals, and out-of-hours services provided by cooperatives of GPs operating on a regional basis. This project will take a multimethod approach to analysing the utilisation of unscheduled paediatric healthcare nationally within the context of a significant change to the provision of healthcare for young children in Ireland-the introduction of free at the point of delivery GP care for all children aged under 6.Methods and analysisA multimethod approach consisting of three work packages will be employed. Using patient-level data, work package 1 will describe patterns of attendance at primary care, out-of-hours medical services and at EDs. Applying a difference-in-difference methodology, the impact of the introduction of free GP care for children under 6 on attendance will be assessed. Work package 2 will explore geospatial trends of attendance at EDs, identifying disparities in ED attendance by local area and demographic characteristics. Work package 3 will employ two discrete choice experiments to examine parental preferences for unscheduled paediatric healthcare and GP decision making when referring a child to the ED. The insights gained by each of the work packages individually and collectively will inform evidence-based health policy for the organisation of paediatric care and resource allocation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this research has been granted by University College Dublin, The Irish College of General Practitioners and the five participating hospitals. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences, and to relevant stakeholders and interest groups.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the association between a large-scale, multi-payer primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative-on outpatient emergency department (ED) and urgent care center (UCC) use and to identify the types of visits that drive the overall trends observed.Data sourcesMedicare claims data capturing characteristics and outcomes of 565 674 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries attributed to 497 CPC practices and 1 165 284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices.Study designWe used an adjusted difference-in-differences framework to test the association between CPC and beneficiaries' ED and UCC use from October 2012 through December 2016. Regression models controlled for baseline practice and patient characteristics and practice-level clustering of standard errors. Our key outcomes were all-cause and primary care substitutable (PC substitutable) outpatient ED and UCC visits, and potentially primary care preventable (PPC preventable) ED visits, categorized by the New York University Emergency Department Algorithm. We used a propensity score-matched comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC practices before CPC on multiple dimensions. Both groups of practices had similar growth in ED and UCC visits in the two-year period before CPC.Principal findingsComprehensive Primary Care practices had 2% (P = .06) lower growth in all-cause ED visits than comparison practices. They had 3% (P = .02) lower growth in PC substitutable ED visits, driven by lower growth in weekday PC substitutable visits (4%, P = .002). There was 3% (P = .04) lower growth in PPC preventable ED visits with no weekday/nonweekday differential. As expected, our falsification test showed no difference in ED visits for injuries. UCC visits had 9% lower growth for both all-cause (P = .08) and PC substitutable visits (P = .07).ConclusionsOur results suggest that greater access to the practice and more effective primary care both contributed to the lower growth in ED and UCC visits during the initiative.