Search

Objective: To explore how out-of-hours primary healthcare services (OOHS) are represented in UK national newspapers, focusing on content and tone of reporting and the use of personal narratives to frame stories., Design: A retrospective cross-sectional quantitative content analysis of articles published in 2005, 2010 and 2015., Data Sources: Nexis database used to search 10 UK national newspapers covering quality, middle-market and tabloid publications., Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: All articles containing the terms 'out-of-hours' (≥3 mentions per article) or ('NHS 24' OR 'NHS 111' OR 'NHS Direct') AND 'out-of-hours' (≥1 mention per article) were included. Letters, duplicate news items, opinion pieces and articles without a substantial portion of the story (>50% of an article's word count, as judged by researchers) concerning OOHS were excluded., Results: 332 newspaper articles were identified: 113 in 2005 (34.1%), 140 in 2010 (42.2%) and 79 in 2015 (23.8%). Of these, 195 (58.7%) were in quality newspapers, 99 (29.8%) in middle-market and 38 (11.3%) in tabloids. The most commonly reported themes were OOHS organisation, personal narratives and telephone triage. Stories about service-level crises and personal tragedy, including unsafe doctors and missed or delayed identification of rare conditions, predominated. The majority of articles (252, 75.9%) were negative in tone. This was observed for all included newspapers and by publication genre; middle-market newspapers had the highest percentage of negative articles (Pearson χ 2 =35.72, p<0.001). Articles presented little supporting contextual information, such as call rates per annum, or advice on how to access OOHS., Conclusion: In this first reported analysis of UK national newspaper coverage of OOHS, media representation is generally negative in tone, with frequent reports of 'negative exemplars' of OOHS crises and fatal individual patient cases with little or no contextualisation. We present recommendations for the future reporting of OOHS, which could apply to the reporting of healthcare services more generally., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health threat driven by inappropriate antibiotic use, mainly in general practice and for respiratory tract infections. In Belgium, the quality of general practitioners' (GPs) antibiotic prescribing is low. To improve antibiotic use, we need a better understanding of this quality problem and corresponding interventions. A general practitioners cooperative (GPC) for out-of-hours (OOH) care presents a unique opportunity to reach a large group of GPs and work on quality improvement. Participatory action research (PAR) is a bottom-up approach that focuses on implementing change into daily practice and has the potential to empower practitioners to produce their own solutions to optimise their antibiotic prescribing., Methods: This PAR study to improve antibiotic prescribing quality in OOH care uses a mixed methods approach. In a first exploratory phase, we will develop a partnership with a GPC and map the existing barriers and opportunities. In a second phase, we will focus on facilitating change and implementing interventions through PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles. In a third phase, antibiotic prescribing quality outside and antibiotic use during office hours will be evaluated. Equally important are the process evaluation and theory building on improving antibiotic prescribing., Ethics: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Antwerp University Hospital/University of Antwerp. PAR unfolds in response to the needs and issues of the stakeholders, therefore new ethics approval will be obtained at each new stage of the research., Dissemination: Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing are needed now more than ever and outcomes will be highly relevant for GPCs, GPs in daily practice, national policymakers and the international scientific community., Trial Registration Number: NCT03082521; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To evaluate if observed increased weekend mortality was associated with poorer quality of care for patients admitted to hospital with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation., Design: Prospective case ascertainment cohort study., Setting: 199 acute hospitals in England and Wales, UK., Participants: Consecutive COPD admissions, excluding subsequent readmissions, from 1 February to 30 April 2014 of whom 13 414 cases were entered into the study., Main Outcomes: Process of care mapped to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical quality standards, access to specialist respiratory teams and facilities, mortality and length of stay, related to time and day of the week of admission., Results: Mortality was higher for weekend admissions (unadjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.43), and for case-mix adjusted weekend mortality when calculated for admissions Friday morning through to Monday night (adjusted OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.43). Median time to death was 6 days. Some clinical processes were poorer on Mondays and during normal working hours but not weekends or out of hours. Specialist respiratory care was less available and less prompt for Friday and Saturday admissions. Admission to a specialist ward or high dependency unit was less likely on a Saturday or Sunday., Conclusions: Increased mortality observed in weekend admissions is not easily explained by deficiencies in early clinical guideline care. Further study of out-of-hospital factors, specialty care and deaths later in the admission are required if effective interventions are to be made to reduce variation by day of the week of admission., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: In October 2013, the South Korean government introduced an incentive programme to increase the availability of Saturday treatment at clinics, hoping to increase the role of primary care providers as gatekeepers to medical care. To the best of our knowledge, no one has yet investigated this programme's effect on overall outpatient care. Our study aims to analyse the change in Saturday outpatient volume and billings in clinics that adopted the Saturday incentive programme., Setting: Our study used 3 types of data from the period October 2012 to March 2014: National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) claims data, hospital evaluation data and medical institution data., Participants: These data consisted of 66 825 881 outpatient cases from 2837 clinics., Interventions: Introducing the Saturday incentive programme., Outcome Measure: We performed a multilevel analysis that adjusted for clinic-level and outpatient-level variables to examine the difference in the percentage of Saturday outpatient volume and billings after introducing the Saturday incentive programme., Results: The percentages of Saturday outpatient volume and billings were higher after introducing the programme (outpatient volume: β=2.065, p<0.001; outpatient billings: β=3.518, p<0.001). In addition, outpatient volume and billings on Friday and Saturday increased after introducing the programme, while those on weekdays, excluding Friday, decreased., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the Saturday incentive programme has affected clinic outpatient care and is a worthwhile health policy in terms of promoting primary care. Thus, it may improve healthcare accessibility and quality of care, and prevent inappropriate usage such as emergency room visits by providing patients with weekend clinic hours., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: Dutch primary out-of-hours care is provided by general practice cooperatives (GPCs). Although most GPCs use the same standardised triage system, differences between GPCs exist in the urgency assigned to patients' health problems. This cross-sectional study aims to provide insight into factors associated with the variation in assigned urgency between GPCs., Design and Methods: Data were derived from routine electronic health records of 895 253 patients who attended 17 GPCs in 2012. Patients' gender, age, travel distance to the GPC, and the use of a computer-based decision support system for triage were investigated as possibly affecting assigned urgency. Multilevel linear regression analyses were executed for the 3 most frequently presented health problems (cystitis/other urinary infection, laceration/cut and fever)., Results: Variation in urgency levels between GPCs was significant for the selected health problems (p=0.00). Assigned urgency was mainly related to patient gender and age. It was not associated with the use of a computer-based decision support system, or with travel distance to the GPC. Most variation in urgency (93.4-96.7%) could be ascribed to variation in patient characteristics., Conclusions: There is significant variation in urgency levels between GPCs, even for the same health problem. This variation is mainly associated with differences in characteristics of individuals contacting the GPCs, rather than with variables such as patients' travel distance or the use of a computer-based decision support system. Since patient characteristics are likely to affect patients' clinical need, our results are an indication of the adequate functioning of the triage system., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)