Abstract
Objectives
To determine whether a new triage system safely diverts a proportion of emergency department (ED) patients to a general practitioner cooperative (GPC).
Methods
Unblinded randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was triage by a nurse using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System assigning low-risk patients to the GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment; it was not communicated during control weekends (all patients remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care patients (the opinion of the treating physician was the gold standard).
Results
In the intervention group, 838/6294 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC, in the control group this was 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In total, 599/6294 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the reason for encounter, age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) were referred back to the ED, three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised.
Conclusions
ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972
Funder
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference36 articles.
1. Self-referrals in a Dutch Emergency Department: how appropriate are they?;N Kraaijvanger;Eur J Emerg Med.
2. How do prudent laypeople define an emergency medical condition?;RW Derlet;J Emerg Med.
3. Demand for emergency health service: factors associated with inappropriate use;ML Carret;BMC Health Serv Res.
4. ED patients: how nonurgent are they? Systematic review of the emergency medicine literature;C Durand A-;Am J Emerg Med.
5. Primary Care Office Visits For Acute Care Dropped Sharply In 2002–15, While ED Visits Increased Modestly;SC Chou;Health Aff (Millwood)
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献