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., (Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by O’Cathain et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.)

Background: In 2015, approximately 2.16% of adults were recorded as having intellectual disabilities. UK government policy is that adults with intellectual disabilities should access mainstream health services. However, people with intellectual disabilities experience challenges when accessing primary and community health services that can lead to inequalities and shorter life expectancy., Objectives: To map and review the evidence on access to primary and community health-care services for adults with intellectual disabilities and their carers. To identify influencing factors for gaining access to primary and community health-care services. To determine which actions, interventions or models of service provision improve entry access to these services for people with intellectual disabilities and their carers. Finally, to identify the gaps in evidence and provide implications for health care and recommendations for research., Data Sources: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) were searched from 2002 to 2018., Review Methods: The mapping review methodology included an extensive literature search, article selection and data extraction of relevant abstracts. Findings from the mapping review informed the scope of the targeted systematic review. Methodology for the targeted systematic review included an extensive literature search informed by the mapping review, article selection, data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis., Results: The mapping review included 413 studies with data extraction completed on abstracts. The targeted systematic review synthesised the evidence from 80 studies reported in 82 publications. During the review process, the team identified three key points at which people with intellectual disabilities potentially interacted with primary and community health-care services: identifying needs, accessing services and interaction during a consultation. In addition, there were a number of papers about interventions or innovations to improve access. Evidence from the studies was synthesised within the four clusters. Influencing factors were identified: staff knowledge/skills, joint working with learning disability services, service delivery model, uptake, appointment making, carer/support role, relationship with staff, time, accessible information and communication. The influencing factors were cross-cutting through the literature, with certain factors having more importance in certain clusters., Limitations: The main limitation was the weak evidence base. The studies generally had small samples, had study designs that were open to potential biases and measured only short-term outcomes., Conclusions: Health checks were found to help identify health needs and improve the care of long-term conditions. Important factors for accessing health services for adults with intellectual disabilities were consistency of care and support, staff training, communication skills and time to communicate, and provision of accessible information. Health professionals need to ensure that there is joint working between different services, clear communication and accurate record-keeping. Future research questions centre on the need to develop and value creative study designs capable of addressing the complex issues identified in the findings of the review for this complex population., 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. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., (Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Cantrell et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.)