Dataset Information

Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore the potential impacts of introducing General Practitioners into Emergency Departments (GPED) from the perspectives of service leaders, health professionals and patients. These 'expectations of impact' can be used to generate hypotheses that will inform future implementations and evaluations of GPED.

Design

Qualitative study consisting of 228 semistructured interviews.

Setting

10 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and the wider healthcare system in England. Interviews were undertaken face to face or via telephone. Data were analysed thematically.

Participants

124 health professionals and 94 patients and carers. 10 service leaders representing a range of national organisations and government departments across England (eg, NHS England and Department of Health) were also interviewed.

Results

A range of GPED models are being implemented across the NHS due to different interpretations of national policy and variation in local context. This has resulted in stakeholders and organisations interpreting the aims of GPED differently and anticipating a range of potential impacts. Participants expected GPED to affect the following areas: ED performance indicators; patient outcome and experience; service access; staffing and workforce experience; and resources. Across these 'domains of influence', arguments for positive, negative and no effect of GPED were proposed.

Conclusions

Evaluating whether GPED has been successful will be challenging. However, despite uncertainty surrounding the direction of effect, there was agreement across all stakeholder groups on the areas that GPED would influence. As a result, we propose eight domains of influence that will inform our subsequent mixed-methods evaluation of GPED.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN51780222.

SUBMITTER: Scantlebury A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8149439 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Project description:ObjectiveGiven recent concerns regarding general practitioner (GP) workforce capacity, we aimed to describe GPs' career intentions, especially those which might impact on GP workforce availability over the next 5 years.DesignCensus survey, conducted between April and June 2016 using postal and online responses , of all GPs on the National Health Service performers list and eligible to practise in primary care. Two reminders were used as necessary.SettingSouth West England (population 3.5 ?million), a region with low overall socioeconomic deprivation.ParticipantsEligible GPs were 2248 out of 3370 (67 % response rate).Main outcome measuresReported likelihood of permanently leaving or reducing hours spent in direct patient care or of taking a career break within the next 5 years and present morale weighted for non-response.ResultsResponders included 217 7 GPs engaged in patient care. Of these, 863 (37% weighted, 95% ?CI 35 % to 39 %) reported a high likelihood of quitting direct patient care within the next 5 years. Overall, 1535 (70% weighted, 95% ?CI 68 % to 72 %) respondents reported a career intention that would negatively impact GP workforce capacity over the next 5 years, through permanently leaving or reducing hours spent in direct patient care, or through taking a career break. GP age was an important predictor of career intentions; sharp increases in the proportion of GPs intending to quit patient care were evident from 52 years. Only 305 (14% weighted, 95% ?CI 13 % to 16 %) reported high morale, while 1195 ( 54 % weighted, 95% ?CI 52 % to 56 %) reported low morale. Low morale was particularly common among GP partners. Current morale strongly predicted GPs' career intentions; those with very low morale were particularly likely to report intentions to quit patient care or to take a career break.ConclusionsA substantial majority of GPs in South West England report low morale. Many are considering career intentions which, if implemented, would adversely impact GP workforce capacity within a short time period.Study registrationNIHR HS&DR - 14/196/02, UKCRN ID 20700.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This paper reports the sources of stress and distress experienced by general practitioners (GP) as part of a wider study exploring the barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for mental illness and burnout among this medical population. DESIGN:Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 47 GP participants. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and imported into NVivo V.11 to facilitate data management. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis employing the constant comparative method. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:A purposive sample of GP participants who self-identified as: (1) currently living with mental distress, (2) returning to work following treatment, (3) off sick or retired early as a result of mental distress or (4) without experience of mental distress. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or over the telephone. RESULTS:The key sources of stress/distress related to: (1) emotion work-the work invested and required in managing and responding to the psychosocial component of GPs' work, and dealing with abusive or confrontational patients; (2) practice culture-practice dynamics and collegial conflict, bullying, isolation and lack of support; (3) work role and demands-fear of making mistakes, complaints and inquests, revalidation, appraisal, inspections and financial worries. CONCLUSION:In addition to addressing escalating workloads through the provision of increased resources, addressing unhealthy practice cultures is paramount. Collegial support, a willingness to talk about vulnerability and illness, and having open channels of communication enable GPs to feel less isolated and better able to cope with the emotional and clinical demands of their work. Doctors, including GPs, are not invulnerable to the clinical and emotional demands of their work nor the effects of divisive work cultures-culture change and access to informal and formal support is therefore crucial in enabling GPs to do their job effectively and to stay well.

Project description:BackgroundThe growth in the volume of online patient feedback, including online patient ratings and comments, suggests that patients are embracing the opportunity to review online their experience of receiving health care. Very little is known about health care professionals' attitudes toward online patient feedback and whether health care professionals are comfortable with the public nature of the feedback.ObjectiveThe aim of the overall study was to explore and describe general practitioners' attitudes toward online patient feedback. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to explore and understand the concerns that general practitioners (GPs) in England have about online patient feedback. This could then be used to improve online patient feedback platforms and help to increase usage of online patient feedback by GPs and, by extension, their patients.MethodsA descriptive qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. A topic guide was developed following a literature review and discussions with key stakeholders. GPs (N=20) were recruited from Cambridgeshire, London, and Northwest England through probability and snowball sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method, a form of thematic analysis.ResultsMost participants in this study had concerns about online patient feedback. They questioned the validity of online patient feedback because of data and user biases and lack of representativeness, the usability of online patient feedback due to the feedback being anonymous, the transparency of online patient feedback because of the risk of false allegations and breaching confidentiality, and the resulting impact of all those factors on them, their professional practice, and their relationship with their patients.ConclusionsThe majority of GPs interviewed had reservations and concerns about online patient feedback and questioned its validity and usefulness among other things. Based on the findings from the study, recommendations for online patient feedback website providers in England are given. These include suggestions to make some specific changes to the platform and the need to promote online patient feedback more among both GPs and health care users, which may help to reduce some of the concerns raised by GPs about online patient feedback in this study.