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.

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: In England in 2015/16, ambulance services responded to nearly 11 million calls. Ambulance Quality Indicators show that half of the patients receiving a response by telephone or face to face were not conveyed to an emergency department. A total of 11% of patients received telephone advice only. A total of 38% of patients were sent an ambulance but were not conveyed to an emergency department. For the 10 large ambulance services in England, rates of calls ending in telephone advice varied between 5% and 17%. Rates of patients who were sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department varied between 23% and 51%. Overall non-conveyance rates varied between 40% and 68%. Objective: To explain variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services. Design: A sequential mixed methods study with five work packages. Setting: Ten of the 11 ambulance services serving > 99% of the population of England. Methods: (1) A qualitative interview study of managers and paramedics from each ambulance service, as well as ambulance commissioners (totalling 49 interviews undertaken in 2015). (2) An analysis of 1 month of routine data from each ambulance service (November 2014). (3) A qualitative study in three ambulance services with different published rates of calls ending in telephone advice (120 hours of observation and 20 interviews undertaken in 2016). (4) An analysis of routine data from one ambulance service linked to emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data (6 months of 2013). (5) A substudy of non-conveyance for people calling 999 with breathing problems. Results: Interviewees in the qualitative study identified factors that they perceived to affect non-conveyance rates. Where possible, these perceptions were tested using routine data. Some variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services was likely to be due to differences in the way rates were calculated by individual services, particularly in relation to telephone advice. Rates for the number of patients sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department were associated with patient-level factors: age, sex, deprivation, time of call, reason for call, urgency level and skill level of attending crew. However, variation between ambulance services remained after adjustment for patient-level factors. Variation was explained by ambulance service-level factors after adjustment for patient-level factors: the percentage of calls attended by advanced paramedics [odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.07], the perception of ambulance service staff and commissioners that advanced paramedics were established and valued within the workforce of an ambulance service (odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.33), and the perception of ambulance service staff and commissioners that senior management was risk averse regarding non-conveyance within an ambulance service (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). Limitations: Routine data from ambulance services are complex and not consistently collected or analysed by ambulance services, thus limiting the utility of comparative analyses. Conclusions: Variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services in England could be reduced by addressing variation in the types of paramedics attending calls, variation in how advanced paramedics are used and variation in perceptions of the risk associated with non-conveyance within ambulance service management. Linking routine ambulance data with emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data for all ambulance services in the UK would allow comparison of the safety and appropriateness of their different non-conveyance rates. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.