Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study

Author:

Scantlebury ArabellaORCID,Adamson JoyORCID,Salisbury ChrisORCID,Brant HeatherORCID,Anderson Helen,Baxter Helen,Bloor KarenORCID,Cowlishaw Sean,Doran Tim,Gaughan JamesORCID,Gibson Andy,Gutacker Nils,Leggett HeatherORCID,Purdy Sarah,Voss SarahORCID,Benger Jonathan Richard

Abstract

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.

Funder

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference54 articles.

1. NHS Digital . Hospital accident and emergency activity 2017-2018 online: NHS digital, 2018 2021. Available: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-accident-emergency-activity/2017-18 [Accessed 23 Nov 2021].

2. Berchet C . Emergency care services 2015.

3. Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions

4. Calculating the proportion of avoidable attendances at UK emergency departments: analysis of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s Sentinel Site Survey data

5. Reasons patients choose the emergency department over primary care: a qualitative Metasynthesis;Vogel;J Gen Intern Med,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