General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department: the GPED mixed-methods study (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMJ Open
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-si...
BMJ open, 2018
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. 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 Ho...
BMJ Open, 2022
Objectives To 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. Design Mixed-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 participants Data 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. Results There 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). Conclusions We 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 number ISCRTN5178022.
British Journal of General Practice
BackgroundAround 43% of emergency department (ED) attendances can be managed in general practice. Strategies to address this include directing appropriate patients to GPs working in or alongside EDs (GPED). Views of GPs choosing to work in GPED roles may inform planning and implementation of GPED services as well as wider general practice provision.AimTo explore the experiences and motivations of GPs choosing to work in GPED services in England, and to identify factors that may support or hinder GPs working in GPED roles.Design and settingThematic analysis of 42 semi-structured interviews of GPs working in 10 GPED case sites across England.MethodQualitative GP interviews from a mixed-methods study of GPs in GPED roles were thematically analysed in relation to research aims.ResultsFour themes were generated: the ‘pull’ of a portfolio career; the ‘push’ of disillusionment with general practice; professional reciprocity; sustainability of GPED services and core general practice. Flexib...
General practitioners providing non-urgent care in emergency department: a natural experiment
BMJ open, 2018
To examine whether care provided by general practitioners (GPs) to non-urgent patients in the emergency department differs significantly from care provided by usual accident and emergency (A&E) staff in terms of process outcomes and A&E clinical quality indicators. Propensity score matched cohort study. GPs in A&E colocated within the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust between May 2015 and March 2016. Non-urgent attendances visits to the A&E department. Process outcomes (any investigation, any blood investigation, any radiological investigation, any intervention, admission and referrals) and A&E clinical indicators (spent 4 hours plus, left without being seen and 7-day reattendance). A total of 5426 patients seen by GPs in A&E were matched with 10 852 patients seen by emergency physicians (ratio 1:2). Compared with standard care in A&E, GPs in A&E significantly: admitted fewer patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.31), referred fewer patients to othe...
Emergency Medicine Journal, 2011
Objectives To explore the reasons for attendance at the emergency department (ED) by patients who could have been managed in an alternative service and the rate of acute admissions to one acute hospital. Design Interview study. Setting One acute hospital (University Hospitals of Leicester) in the East Midlands. Participants 23 patients and/or their carers. Methods A purposive sample of patients attending the ED and the linked urgent care centre was identified and recruited. Patients in the sample were approached by a clinician and a researcher and invited to take part in an interview. Patients of different ethnicities and from different age groups, arriving at the ED via different referral routes (self-referral, emergency ambulance, GP referral, out-of-hours services) and attending at different times of the day and night were included. The interviews were recorded and transcribed with the individuals' permission and analysed using the framework analysis approach. Results Patients' anxiety or concern about the presenting problem, the range of services available to the ED and the perceived efficacy of these services, patients' perceptions of access to alternative services including general practice and lack of alternative pathways were factors that influenced the decision to use the ED. Conclusions Access to general practice, anxiety about the presenting problem, awareness and perceptions of the efficacy of the services available in the ED and lack of alternative pathways are important predictors of attendance rates.
BMC Emergency Medicine, 2020
BackgroundTo manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads’ experiences of implementing and delivering ‘primary care services’ and ‘emergency medicine services’ where GPs were integrated into the ED team.MethodsWe conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across ‘primary care services’, ‘emergency medicine services’ and emergency departments without primary care services.ResultsIn EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when havin...
GP roles in emergency medical services: a systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis
BJGP Open, 2023
Background: A significant proportion of emergency medical services (EMS) work is for problems that may be amenable to timely primary care management and could benefit from GP input. Utilising GPs in EMS may reduce avoidable emergency department (ED) conveyance, releasing emergency ambulances for higher- acuity care, and meeting patient needs earlier in the evolution of an emergency call. Aim: To collate and summarise evidence on how GPs are utilised in EMS. Design & setting: Systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted using search terms for general practice and emergency care. Primary research articles investigating the utilisation of GPs in non- critical EMS were included. An inductive framework was used to structure the results alongside a narrative synthesis. Results: Twenty- one articles were included. GPs were embedded in EMS for urgent management of high- acuity patients or used as an intervention to avoid unnecessary ED conveyance in selected lower- acuity patients. The importance of interprofessional relationships and training for GPs involved in EMS was highlighted. No studies explored patient- reported outcomes. Outcomes measured were predominantly ED non- conveyance and admission avoidance, with GP services as an intervention reducing the likelihood of these outcomes. Conclusion: Embedding GPs in EMS might service different purposes depending on context. There is some evidence that GP EMS services may reduce the likelihood of ED conveyance and hospital admission in selected cases; it is unclear whether this is owing to case selection or GP involvement. Future research should incorporate patients’ views and experiences.
BMJ Open, 2020
ObjectivesTo compare the contribution of physician associates to the processes and outcomes of emergency medicine consultations with that of foundation year two doctors-in-training.DesignMixed-methods study: retrospective chart review using 4 months’ anonymised clinical record data of all patients seen by physician associates or foundation year two doctors-in-training in 2016; review of a subsample of 40 records for clinical adequacy; semi-structured interviews with staff and patients; observations of physician associates.SettingThree emergency departments in England.ParticipantsThe records of 8816 patients attended by 6 physician associates and 40 foundation year two doctors-in-training; of these n=3197 had the primary outcome recorded (n=1129 physician associates, n=2068 doctor); 14 clinicians and managers and 6 patients or relatives for interview; 5 physician associates for observation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was unplanned re-attendance at the sa...