Dataset Information

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN51780222.

SUBMITTER: Morton K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6194458 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

Morton Katherine K Voss Sarah S Adamson Joy J Baxter Helen H Bloor Karen K Brandling Janet J Cowlishaw Sean S Doran Tim T Gibson Andrew A Gutacker Nils N Liu Dan D Purdy Sarah S Roy Paul P Salisbury Christopher C Scantlebury Arabella A Vaittinen Anu A Watson Rose R Benger Jonathan Richard JR

BMJ open 20181003 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital t ...[more]

PMID: 30287675

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDiagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies.Methods and analysisThis study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human-human and human-system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency Department attendance is increasing internationally, of which a significant proportion could be managed in general practice. In England, policies backed by substantial capital funding require such patients attending Emergency Departments be directed or 'streamed' to General Practitioners working in or parallel to Emergency Departments. However, evidence for streaming is limited and the processes of streaming patients attending Emergency Departments to General Practitioners lacks exploration.ObjectivesThis paper explores streaming to General Practitioners in and alongside Emergency Departments at ten sites across England. It highlights positive streaming practice, as well as issues that may contribute to poor streaming practice, in order to inform future service improvement.MethodsA longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with data collected between October 2017 and December 2019 across 10 case study sites throughout England as part of a broader mixed methods study. 186 non-participant observations and 226 semi-structured interviews with 191 health professionals working in Emergency Departments or related General Practitioner Services were thematically analysed in relation to streaming processes and experiences.ResultsSix interconnected themes influencing streaming were identified: implementing and maintaining structural support; developing and supporting streaming personnel; implementing workable and responsive streaming protocols; negotiating primary/secondary care boundaries; developing and maintaining interprofessional relationships and concerns for patient safety. Streaming was considered central to the success of General Practitioners in/parallel to Emergency Departments. The importance of the skills of streaming nurses in delivering an optimal and safety critical service was highlighted, as was the skillset of General Practitioners and interprofessional relationships between streamers and General Practitioners. There was no distinct streaming model or method associated with good streaming practice to General Practitioners in/alongside Emergency Departments, instead factors for success were identified and key recommendations suggested. 'Inappropriate' streaming was identified as a problem, where patients streamed to General Practitioners in or parallel to Emergency Departments required Emergency Department management, or patients suitable for General Practitioner care were kept in the Emergency Department.ConclusionDespite adopting differing methods, commonalities across case sites in the delivery of good streaming practice were identified, leading to identification of key recommendations which may inform development of streaming services.Study registrationISRCTN51780222. Tweetable abstract: Workplace culture and the skillset of streamers and General Practitioners is crucial to streaming of patients to General Practitioners in Emergency Departments.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce.DesignMixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring.Setting and participantsData were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available.ResultsThere was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring).ConclusionsWe found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience.Trial registration numberISCRTN5178022.

Project description:BackgroundPatient demand, internationally, on emergency departments and urgent care treatment centres has grown. Shortages of staff, particularly of emergency medicine doctors, have compounded problems. Some countries are pursuing solutions of including non-medical practitioners e.g., nurse practitioners and physician associates/assistants in their emergency department workforces. This study investigated at the macro and meso level of the health system in England: what the rationale was and the factors influencing the current and future employment, or otherwise, of non-medical practitioners in emergency departments and urgent treatment centres.MethodsMixed qualitative methods in the interpretative tradition were employed. We undertook, in 2021-2022, a documentary analysis of national, regional and subregional policy (2017-2021), followed by semi-structured interviews of a purposive sample (n = 18) of stakeholders from national, regional and subregional levels. The data were thematically analysed and then synthesised.ResultsThere was general national policy support for increasing the presence of non-medical practitioners as part of the solution to shortages of emergency medicine doctors. However, evidence of policy support dissipated at regional and subregional levels. There were no published numbers for non-medical practitioners in emergency departments, but stakeholders suggested they were relatively small in number, unevenly distributed and faced uncertain growth. While the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath were said to have made senior decision makers more receptive to workforce innovation, many factors contributed to the uncertain growth. These factors included: limited evidence on the relative advantage of including non-medical practitioners; variation in the models of service being pursued to address patient demand on emergency departments and the place of non-medical practitioners within them; the lack of a national workforce plan with clear directives; and the variation in training for non-medical practitioner roles, combined with the lack of regulation of that level of practice.ConclusionsWe identified many features of a system ready to introduce non-medical practitioners in emergency departments and urgent treatment centres but there were uncertainties and the potential for conflict with other professional groups. One area of uncertainty was evidence of relative advantage in including non-medical practitioners in staffing. This requires urgent attention to inform decision making for short- and long-term workforce planning. Further investigation is required to consider whether these findings are generalisable to other specialties, and to similar health systems in other countries.

Dataset Information

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

Publications

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets