General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department: the GPED mixed-methods study

Author:

Benger Jonathan1ORCID,Brant Heather1ORCID,Scantlebury Arabella2ORCID,Anderson Helen2ORCID,Baxter Helen3ORCID,Bloor Karen2ORCID,Brandling Janet1ORCID,Cowlishaw Sean4ORCID,Doran Tim2ORCID,Gaughan James2ORCID,Gibson Andrew1ORCID,Gutacker Nils2ORCID,Leggett Heather2ORCID,Liu Dan5ORCID,Morton Katherine1ORCID,Purdy Sarah3ORCID,Salisbury Chris3ORCID,Vaittinen Anu6ORCID,Voss Sarah1ORCID,Watson Rose67ORCID,Adamson Joy2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

2. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

3. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

5. University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

6. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

7. Medialis Ltd, Banbury, UK

Abstract

Background Emergency care is facing a steadily rising demand. In response, hospitals have implemented new models of care that locate general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department. Objectives We aimed to explore the effects of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team, and the wider system, as well as to determine the differential effects of different service models. Design This was a mixed-methods study in three work packages. Work package A classified current models of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department in England. We interviewed national and local leaders, staff and patients to identify the hypotheses underpinning these services. Work package B used a retrospective analysis of routinely available data. Outcome measures included waiting times, admission rates, reattendances, mortality and the number of patient attendances. We explored potential cost savings. Work package C was a detailed mixed-methods case study in 10 sites. We collected and synthesised qualitative and quantitative data from non-participant observations, interviews and a workforce survey. Patients and the public were involved throughout the development, delivery and dissemination of the study. Results High-level goals were shared between national policy-makers and local leads; however, there was disagreement about the anticipated effects. We identified eight domains of influence: performance against the 4-hour target, use of investigations, hospital admissions, patient outcome and experience, service access, workforce recruitment and retention, workforce behaviour and experience, and resource use. General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department were associated with a very slight reduction in the rate of reattendance within 7 days; however, the clinical significance of this was judged to be negligible. For all other indicators, there was no effect on performance or outcomes. However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in these findings. This is explained by the considerable variation observed in our case study sites, and the sensitivity of service implementation to local factors. The effects on the workforce were complex; they were often positive for emergency department doctors and general practitioners, but less so for nursing staff. The patient-streaming process generated stress and conflict for emergency department nurses and general practitioners. Patients and carers were understanding of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department. We found no evidence that staff concerns regarding the potential to create additional demand were justified. Any possible cost savings associated with reduced reattendances were heavily outweighed by the cost of the service. Limitations The reliability of our data sources varied and we were unable to complete our quantitative analysis entirely as planned. Participation in interviews and at case study sites was voluntary. Conclusions Service implementation was highly subject to local context and micro-level influences. Key success factors were interprofessional working, staffing and training, streaming, and infrastructure and support. Future work Further research should study the longer-term effects of these services, clinician attitudes to risk and the implementation of streaming. Additional work should also examine the system effects of national policy initiatives, develop methodologies to support rapid service evaluation and study the relationship between primary and secondary care. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN51780222. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)

Reference116 articles.

1. Taxonomy of the form and function of primary care services in or alongside emergency departments: concepts paper;Cooper;Emerg Med J,2019

2. NHS Digital. Hospital Accident & Emergency Activity 2018–19. London: NHS England; 2019.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3