Search

Background Case studies from the US suggest that Advanced Access appointment systems lead to shorter delays for appointments, reduced workload, and increased continuity of care. Aim To determine whether implementation of Advanced Access in general practice is associated with the above benefits in the UK. Design of study Controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study. Setting Twenty-four practices that had implemented Advanced Access and 24 that had not. Method Anonymous telephone calls were made monthly to request an appointment. Numbers of appointments and patients consulting were calculated from practice records. Continuity was determined from anonymised patient records. Results The wait for an appointment with any doctor was slightly shorter at Advanced Access practices than control practices (mean 1.00 day and 1.87 days respectively, adjusted difference -0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.51 to 0.004 days). Advanced Access practices met the NHS Plan 48-hour access target on 71% of occasions and control practices on 60% of occasions (adjusted odds ratio 1.61; 95% CI = 0.78 to 3.31; P = 0.200). The number of appointments offered, and patients seen, increased at both Advanced Access and control practices over the period studied, with no evidence of differences between them. There was no difference between Advanced Access and control practices in continuity of care (adjusted difference 0.003; 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.07). Conclusion Advanced Access practices provided slightly shorter waits for an appointment compared with control practices, but performance against NHS access targets was considerably poorer than officially reported for both types of practice. Advanced Access practices did not have reduced workload or increased continuity of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background General practices in England have been encouraged to introduce Advanced Access, but there is no robust evidence that this is associated with improved access in ways that matter to patients. Aim To compare priorities and experiences of patients consulting in practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access. Design of study Patient questionnaire survey. Setting Forty-seven practices in 12 primary care trust areas of England. Method Questionnaire administered when patients consulted. Results Of 12 825 eligible patients, 10 821 (84%) responded. Most (70%) were consulting about a problem they had had for at least 'a few weeks'. Patients obtained their current appointment sooner in Advanced Access practices, but were less likely to have been able to book in advance. They could usually see a doctor more quickly than those in control practices, but were no more satisfied overall with the appointment system. The top priority for patients was to be seen on a day of choice rather than to be seen quickly, but different patient groups had different priorities. Patients in Advanced Access practices were no more or less likely to obtain an appointment that matched their priorities than those in control practices. Patients in both types of practice experienced problems making contact by telephone. Conclusion Patients are seen more quickly in Advanced Access practices, but speed of access is less important to patients than choice of appointment; this may be because most consultations are about long-standing problems. Appointment systems need to be flexible to accommodate the different needs of different patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Ambulance crews make 3.6 million emergency journeys each year. Effective patient transfer relies on verbal, non-verbal and documentary handover of complex information in time-limited environments. Weaknesses in ambulance handover have been noted but little work has been done to investigate the process and identify good practice. Research has looked at communication during transfer of care; standardised resuscitation handover formats have been used but do not always improve accuracy. Ineffective handover threatens patient safety, quality and efficiency of care. This study provides an in-depth examination of handover to inform practice and education. Method We are conducting an ethnographic case study of handover in an ambulance Trust. Researchers are accompanying crews as they undertake their day-to-day work, using observation and video-recording to capture handover—from data collection at scene, pre-alerting (by radio, telephone and computer) through to the hospital. We are also collecting information from patient records along with training materials, policies and directives pertaining to handover. Ethnography allows for informal conversations to take place as appropriate during the fieldwork to clarify understandings and explore emerging themes in the analysis. In addition we are using semi-structured interviews with patients, carers, ambulance staff, nurses, doctors and non-clinical hospital staff to explore the handover process. Result The project started 2nd April 2009. This poster will outline the methodology, present some of the emerging themes from our analysis and describe future data collection and analysis plans. Discussion This is an ongoing project. We will present our experience of undertaking this unusual project—especially issues surrounding accessing staff and the practicalities of data collection. By presenting this work we seek to inform future research into emergency care. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To quantify service integration achieved in the national exemplar programme for single call access to out of hours care through NHS Direct, and its effect on the wider health system., Design: Observational before and after study of demand, activity, and trends in the use of other health services., Participants: 34 general practice cooperatives with NHS Direct partners (exemplars): four were case exemplars; 10 control cooperatives., Setting: England., Main Outcome Measures: Extent of integration; changes in demand, activity, and trends in emergency ambulance transports; attendances at emergency departments, minor injuries units, and NHS walk-in centres; and emergency admissions to hospital in the first year., Results: Of 31 distinct exemplars, 21 (68%) integrated all out of hours call management. Nine (29%) achieved single call access for all patients. In the only case exemplar where direct comparison was possible, a higher proportion of telephone calls were handled by cooperative nurses before integration than by NHS Direct afterwards (2622/6687 (39%) v 2092/7086 (30%): P < 0.0001). Other case exemplars did not achieve 30%. A small but significant downturn in overall demand for care seen in two case exemplars was also seen in the control cooperatives. The number of emergency ambulance transports increased in three of the four case exemplars after integration, reaching statistical significance in two (5%, -0.02% to 10%, P = 0.06; 6%, 1% to 12%, P = 0.02; 7%, 3% to 12%, P = 0.001). This was always accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of calls to the integrated service., Conclusion: Most exemplars achieved integration of call management but not single call access for patients. Most patients made at least two telephone calls to contact NHS Direct, and then waited for a nurse to call back. Evidence for transfer of demand from case exemplars to 999 ambulance services may be amenable to change, but NHS Direct may not have sufficient capacity to support national implementation of the programme.