Search

Background: There is widespread concern about the pressure on emergency and urgent services in the UK, particularly emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments. A mismatch between supply and demand has led to interest in what can be termed ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of services. This is defined by the research team in this study as ‘patients attending services with problems that are classified as suitable for treatment by a lower urgency service or self-care’. This is a challenging issue to consider because patients may face difficulties when deciding the best action to take, and different staff may make different judgements about what constitutes a legitimate reason for service use. Objectives: To identify the drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments from patient and population perspectives. Design: This was a sequential mixed-methods study with three components: a realist review; qualitative interviews (n = 48) and focus groups (n = 3) with patients considered ‘clinically unnecessary’ users of these services, focusing on parents of young children, young adults and people in areas of social deprivation; and a population survey (n = 2906) to explore attitudes towards seeking care for unexpected, non-life-threatening health problems and to identify the characteristics of someone with a tendency for ‘clinically unnecessary’ help-seeking. Results: From the results of the three study components, we found that multiple, interacting drivers influenced individuals’ decision-making. Drivers could be grouped into symptom related, patient related and health service related. Symptom-related drivers were anxiety or need for reassurance, which were caused by uncertainty about the meaning or seriousness of symptoms; concern about the impact of symptoms on daily activities/functioning; and a need for immediate relief of intolerable symptoms, particularly pain. Patient-related drivers were reduced coping capacity as a result of illness, stress or limited resources; fear of consequences when responsible for another person’s health, particularly a child; and the influence of social networks. Health service-related drivers were perceptions or previous experiences of services, particularly the attractions of emergency departments; a lack of timely access to an appropriate general practitioner appointment; and compliance with health service staff’s advice. Limitations: Difficulty recruiting patients who had used the ambulance service to the interviews and focus groups meant that we were not able to add as much as we had anticipated to the limited evidence base regarding this service. Conclusions: Patients use emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments when they may not need the level of clinical care provided by these services for a multitude of inter-related reasons that sometimes differ by population subgroup. Some of these reasons relate to health services, in terms of difficulty accessing general practice leading to use of emergency departments, and to population-learnt behaviour concerning the positive attributes of emergency departments, rather than to patient characteristics. Social circumstances, such as complex and stressful lives, influence help-seeking for all three services. Demand may be ‘clinically unnecessary’ but completely understandable when service accessibility and patients’ social circumstances are considered. Future work: There is a need to evaluate interventions, including changing service configuration, strengthening general practice and addressing the stressors that have an impact on people’s coping capacity. Different subgroups may require different interventions. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017056273. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background Paramedics make important and increasingly complex decisions at scene about patient care. Patient safety implications of influences on decision making in the pre-hospital setting were previously under-researched. Cutting edge perspectives advocate exploring the whole system rather than individual influences on patient safety. Ethnography (the study of people and cultures) has been acknowledged as a suitable method for identifying health care issues as they occur within the natural context. In this paper we compare multiple methods used in a multi-site, qualitative study that aimed to identify system influences on decision making. Methods The study was conducted in three NHS Ambulance Trusts in England and involved researchers from each Trust working alongside academic researchers. Exploratory interviews with key informants e.g. managers (n = 16) and document review provided contextual information. Between October 2012 and July 2013 researchers observed 34 paramedic shifts and ten paramedics provided additional accounts via audio-recorded ‘digital diaries’ (155 events). Three staff focus groups (total n = 21) and three service user focus groups (total n = 23) explored a range of experiences and perceptions. Data collection and analysis was carried out by academic and ambulance service researchers as well as service users. Workshops were held at each site to elicit feedback on the findings and facilitate prioritisation of issues identified. Results The use of a multi-method qualitative approach allowed cross-validation of important issues for ambulance service staff and service users. A key factor in successful implementation of the study was establishing good working relationships with academic and ambulance service teams. Enrolling at least one research lead at each site facilitated the recruitment process as well as study progress. Active involvement with the study allowed ambulance service researchers and service users to gain a better understanding of the research process. Feedback workshops allowed stakeholders to discuss and prioritise findings as well as identify new research areas. Conclusion Combining multiple qualitative methods with a collaborative research approach can facilitate exploration of system influences on patient safety in under-researched settings. The paper highlights empirical issues, strengths and limitations for this approach. Feedback workshops were effective for verifying findings and prioritising areas for future intervention and research.

Background: In recent years, a number of emergency departments (EDs) have closed or have been replaced by another facility such as an urgent care centre. With further reorganisation of EDs expected, this study aimed to provide research evidence to inform the public, the NHS and policy-makers when considering local closures. Objective: To understand the impact of ED closures/downgrades on populations and emergency care providers. Design: A controlled interrupted time series of monthly data to assess changes in the patterns of mortality in local populations and changes in local emergency care service activity and performance, following the closure of type 1 EDs. Setting: The populations of interest were in the resident catchment areas of five EDs that closed between 2009 and 2011 (in Newark, Hemel Hempstead, Bishop Auckland, Hartlepool and Rochdale) and of five control areas. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measures were ambulance service incident volumes and times, the number of emergency and urgent care attendances at EDs, the number of emergency hospital admissions, mortality, and case fatality ratios. Data sources: Data were sourced from the Office for National Statistics, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) accident and emergency, HES admitted patient care and ambulance service computer-aided dispatch records. Results: There was significant heterogeneity among sites in the results for most of the outcome measures, but the overall findings were as follows: there is evidence of an increase, on average, in the total number of incidents attended by an ambulance following 999 calls, and those categorised as potentially serious emergency incidents; there is no statistically reliable evidence of changes in the number of attendances at emergency or urgent care services or emergency hospital admissions; there is no statistically reliable evidence of any change in the number of deaths from a set of emergency conditions following the ED closure in any site, although, on average, there was a small increase in an indicator of the ‘risk of death’ in the closure areas compared with the control areas. Limitations: Unavailable or unreliable data hindered some of the analysis regarding ED and ambulance service performance. Conclusions: Overall, across the five areas studied, there was no statistically reliable evidence that the reorganisation of emergency care was associated with an increase in population mortality. This suggests that any negative effects caused by increased journey time to the ED can be offset by other factors; for example, if other new services are introduced and care becomes more effective than it used to be, or if the care received at the now-nearest hospital is more effective than that provided at the hospital where the ED closed. However, there may be implications of reorganisation for NHS emergency care providers, with ambulance services appearing to experience a greater burden. Future work: Understanding why effects vary between sites is necessary. It is also necessary to understand the impact on patient experience. Economic evaluation to understand the cost implications of such reorganisation is also desirable. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Decisions made by front-line ambulance staff are often time critical and based on limited information, but wrong decisions in this context could have serious consequences for patients. There has been little research carried out in the ambulance service setting to identify areas of risk associated with decisions about patient care. Aim: The aim of this study was to qualitatively examine potential system-wide influences on decision-making in the ambulance service setting and to identify useful areas for future research and intervention. Methods: We used a multisite, multimethod qualitative approach across three ambulance service trusts. In phase 1 we carried out 16 interviews to contextualise the study and provide discussion points for phase 2. For phase 2, university and ambulance service researchers observed paramedics on 34 shifts and 10 paramedics completed ‘digital diaries’ that reported challenges to decision-making or to patient safety. Six focus groups were held, three with staff (n = 21) and three with service users (n = 23). From observation and diary data we developed a typology of decisions made at the scene. Data from these and other sources were also coded within a human factors framework and then thematically analysed to identify influences on those decisions. In phase 3, workshops were held at each site to allow participants and stakeholders (n = 45) to comment on the study findings. Participants were asked to rank influences on decisions using a ‘paired comparison’ method. Results: Interviews provided the context for further qualitative exploration. Nine types of decision were identified from observations and digital diaries, ranging from emergency department conveyance and specialist emergency pathways to non-conveyance. A synthesis of findings from the observations, diaries and staff focus groups revealed seven overarching system influences on decision-making and potential risk factors: meeting increasing demand for emergency care; impacts of performance regime and priorities on service delivery; access to appropriate care options; disproportionate risk aversion; education, training and professional development for crews; communication and feedback to crews; and ambulance service resources. Safety culture issues were also identified. Data from the service user focus groups reflected similar issues to those identified from the staff focus groups. Service user concerns included call handling and communication, triage, patient involvement in decisions, balancing demand, resources, access to care, risk aversion, geographical location and vulnerable patients. Group discussions highlighted a lack of awareness by the public of how best to use emergency and urgent care services. Workshop attendees were satisfied that the findings reflected relevant issues. The two issues ranked highest for warranting attention were staff training and development and access to alternative care. Conclusions: Multiple qualitative methods allowed a range of perspectives to be accessed and validation of issues across perspectives. Recommendations for future research include exploring effective ways of providing access to alternative care pathways to accident and emergency, assessing public awareness and expectations of ambulance and related services, exploring safe ways of improving telephone triage decisions and assessing the effects of different staff skill levels on patient safety. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Recent increases in emergency admission rates have caused concern. Some emergency admissions may be avoidable if services in the emergency and urgent care system are available and accessible. A set of 14 conditions, likely to be rich in avoidable emergency admissions, was identified by expert consensus. Objective: We aimed to understand variation in avoidable emergency admissions between different emergency and urgent care systems in England. Methods: The design was a sequential mixed-methods study in three phases. In phase 1 we calculated an age- and sex-adjusted avoidable admission rate for 2008–11. We located routine data on characteristics of emergency and urgent care systems and used linear regression to explain variation in avoidable admissions rates in 150 systems. In phase 2 we undertook in-depth case studies in six systems to identify further factors. A key part of these case studies was interviews with commissioners, service providers and patient representatives, totalling 82 interviews. In phase 3 we returned to the linear regression to test further factors identified in the case studies. Results: The 14 conditions accounted for 3,273,395 admissions in 2008–11 (22% of all emergency admissions). The mean age- and sex-adjusted admission rate was 2258 per year per 100,000 population, with a 3.4-fold variation between systems (1268–4359). Characteristics of the population explained the majority of variation: deprivation explained 72% of variation, with urban/rural status explaining 3% more. Systems serving populations with high levels of deprivation and in urban areas had high rates of potentially avoidable admissions. Interviewees described the complexity of deprivation, representing high levels of morbidity, low awareness of alternative services to emergency departments and high expressed need for immediate access to urgent care. Factors related to emergency departments (EDs), hospitals, emergency ambulance services and general practice explained a further 10% of variation in avoidable admissions. Systems with high, potentially avoidable, admission rates had high rates of acute beds (suggesting supply-induced demand), high rates of attendance at EDs (which have been associated with poor perceived access to general practice), high rates of conversion from ED attendances to admissions, and low rates of non-transport to emergency departments by emergency ambulances. The six case studies revealed further possible explanations of variation: there was variation in how hospitals coded admissions; some systems focused proactively on admission avoidance whereas others were more interested in hospital discharge, for example use of multidisciplinary teams based at acute trusts; there were different levels of integration between different services such as health and social care, and acute and community trusts; and some systems faced more challenging problems around geographical boundaries operating for different services in the system. Interviewees often described admission as the easy or safe option. Conclusions: Deprivation explained most of the variation in avoidable admission rates. Research is needed to understand the complex relationship between deprivation and avoidable admission, and to develop interventions tailored to avoid admissions from deprived communities. Standardisation of coding of admissions would reduce variation. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Research Delivery programme.