Search

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models., Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation., Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development., Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models., Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored., Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services., Future Work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research ; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Purpose: Health policy in England has advocated the use of primary care clinicians at emergency departments to address pressures from rising attendances. This study explored senior managers' perspective son funding mechanisms used to implement the policy and experiences of success or challenges in introducing GPs in or alongside emergency departments., Methods: The perspectives of senior clinical, business and finance managers with responsibility for emergency department services and on-site primary care service implementation were investigated in semi-structured interviews with 31 managers at 12 type-1 emergency departments in England and Wales (February 2018 - September 2019). Emergency departments operated one of three GP models or had prior experience of implementing a GP model. Interviews were thematically analysed., Results: Perceived successful GPs models in emergency departments were reliant on well-organised and unified funding mechanisms, appropriate staffing and governance, and consideration of population demands and needs. Funding mechanisms and the flow of funds were reported as complex, especially in Inside-parallel GP models. The most efficient mechanisms were described at departments where funding was unified, in collaboration with health and community care services. Staffing with local, experienced GPs was important. There were cautions from experiences with private locum providers., Conclusion: Our findings contribute to debates about implementing policy on how primary care clinicians are effectively and safely deployed in emergency departments and how local context should be considered., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no declarations of interest, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: To 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., Methods: We 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., Results: In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions., Conclusions: Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand.

Objectives: Worldwide, 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., Design: Rapid realist literature review., Setting: Emergency departments., Inclusion Criteria: Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments., Aim: To 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., Results: Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes., Conclusions: Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017069741., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Guidance in England and Wales recommends that nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), varenicline or bupropion should be offered for smoking cessation support. Research on general practitioner (GP) NRT prescribing patterns for smoking cessation is lacking in the published literature., Methods: UK primary care electronic health records were retrospectively analysed to identify the most common GP initiated NRT prescribing patterns, characterise people who receive NRT and determine whether NRTs given in a first quit attempt are different from subsequent attempts., Results: The study population comprised 38,954 individuals in UK primary care data with a first ever NRT patch smoking cessation attempt for the period January 2008-December 2011. The majority (64.3%) received NRT patch monotherapy at first smoking cessation attempt, and the most common NRT was 21 mg/24 hours patch monotherapy (15.2%). Of the 35.7% first smoking cessation attempts which were NRT combination therapy, the most common combination was patch + inhalator (56.2%). The proportion of people who started a smoking cessation attempt with combination therapy increased from 25.7% in 2008 to 44.8% in 2011. The majority of the population had one recorded smoking cessation attempt but a significant minority (20.2% N = 7,868) started a second smoking cessation attempt. Second and third attempts, while predominantly patch monotherapy, also demonstrated an increasing use of NRT combinations over the study period (2ndepisode: 20.6%-38.2%; 3rdepisode: 20.0%-36.8%). However, a minority received only non-patch NRT during second and third NRT episodes. Taking into account the 39,068 people prescribed NRT patch during the study period with a history of NRT at baseline (excluded from the analysis), the total proportion of people prescribed NRT patch between 2008-2011 who had more than one NRT episode was 48.4% (46,936/96,986) and of 128,115 NRT users, only 14.7% (N = 18,838) were prescribed bupropion or varenicline prior to NRT use., Conclusions: The study findings represent new data describing GP NRT prescription patterns in the UK. Given the predominance of NRT patch monotherapy observed, health policy makers and service commissioners should ensure that GPs provide equality of access to all recommended smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.

Background: Increasing pressure on emergency services has led to the development of different models of care delivery including GPs working in or alongside emergency departments (EDs), but with a lack of evidence for patient safety outcomes. Aim: This study aimed to explore how care processes work and how patient safety incidents associated with GPs working in ED settings may be mitigated. Design and setting: Realist methodology with a purposive sample of 13 EDs in England and Wales with different GP service models. The study sought to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes to develop theories about how and why patient safety incidents may occur, and how safe care was perceived to be delivered. Method: Qualitative data were collected (observations, semi-structured audio-recorded staff interviews, and local patient safety incident reports). Data were coded using 'if, then, because' statements to refine initial theories developed from an earlier rapid realist literature review and analysis of a sample of national patient safety incident reports. Results: The authors developed a programme theory to describe how safe patient care was perceived to be delivered in these service models, including: an experienced streaming nurse using local guidance and early warning scores; support for GPs' clinical decision making, with clear governance processes relevant to the intended role (traditional GP approach or emergency medicine approach); and strong clinical leadership to promote teamwork and improve communication between services. Conclusion: The findings of this study can be used as a focus for more in-depth human factors investigations to optimise work conditions in this complex care delivery setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]