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.

Patients participate in emergency care research and are the intended beneficiaries of research findings. The public provide substantial funding for research through taxation and charitable donations. If we do research to benefit patients and the public are funding the research, then patients and the public should be involved in the planning, prioritisation, design, conduct and oversight of research, yet patient and public involvement (or more simply, public involvement, since patients are also members of the public) has only recently developed in emergency care research. In this article, we describe what public involvement is and how it can help emergency care research. We use the development of a pioneering public involvement group in emergency care, the Sheffield Emergency Care Forum, to provide insights into the potential and challenges of public involvement in emergency care research.

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.

BackgroundIn recent years a number of Emergency Departments (EDs) in England have closed, or been replaced by a lower acuity facility such as an Urgent Care Centre. With further re-organisation of EDs expected, the ‘closED’ study aimed to provide research evidence to inform the public, NHS, and policymakers when considering future closures. Our aim was to understand the impact of ED closure on populations and emergency care providers, the first study to do so in England. In this session I will focus on the impact on the ambulance service.MethodsWe undertook a controlled interrupted time series analysis assessing changes in ambulance service activity, following the closure of Type 1 EDs in England. Data was sourced data from Ambulance service computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) records. The resident catchment populations of five EDs, closed between 2009 and 2011, were selected for analysis. Five control areas were also selected. The primary ambulance outcome measures were: ambulance service incident volumes and mean ‘call to destination’ time.ResultsThere was some evidence of a large increase of 13.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5% to 24.4%] in the total number of emergency ambulance incidents compared with the control areas. There was an increase of 3.9 minutes (95% CI 2.2 to 5.6 minutes) in the meantime taken from a 999 ‘red’ call being answered to a patient arriving at hospital.ConclusionsGiven such major reorganisation of emergency and urgent care we might expect some changes in emergency and urgency care activity. Our study found some changes in the ambulance service measures. The increase in emergency ambulance incidents, over and above the increase in the control area, suggests that the closure of the EDs in our study may have contributed to an additional increase in workload within the ambulance services in these areas.

Some emergency admissions can be avoided if acute exacerbations of health problems are managed by emergency and urgent care services without resorting to admission to a hospital bed. In England, these services include hospitals, emergency ambulance, and a range of primary and community services. The aim was to identify whether characteristics of hospitals affect potentially avoidable emergency admission rates. An age-sex adjusted rate of admission for 14 conditions rich in avoidable emergency admissions was calculated for 129 hospitals in England for 2008–2011. Twenty-two per cent (3,273,395/14,998,773) of emergency admissions were classed as potentially avoidable, with threefold variation between hospitals. Explanatory factors of this variation included those which hospital managers could not control (demand for hospital emergency departments) and those which they could control (supply in terms of numbers of acute beds in the hospital, and management of non-emergency and emergency patients within the hospital). Avoidable admission rates were higher for hospitals with higher emergency department attendance rates, higher numbers of acute beds per 1000 catchment population and higher conversion rates from emergency department attendance to admission. Hospital managers may be able to reduce avoidable emergency admissions by reducing supply of acute beds and conversion rates from emergency department attendance.

Patients participate in emergency care research and are the intended beneficiaries of research findings. The public provide substantial funding for research through taxation and charitable donations. If we do research to benefit patients and the public are funding the research, then patients and the public should be involved in the planning, prioritisation, design, conduct and oversight of research, yet patient and public involvement (or more simply, public involvement, since patients are also members of the public) has only recently developed in emergency care research. In this article, we describe what public involvement is and how it can help emergency care research. We use the development of a pioneering public involvement group in emergency care, the Sheffield Emergency Care Forum, to provide insights into the potential and challenges of public involvement in emergency care research.

Objective To identify factors affecting variation in avoidable emergency admissions that are not usually identified in statistical regression. Methods As part of an ethnographic residual analysis, we compared six emergency and urgent care systems in England, interviewing 82 commissioners and providers of key emergency and urgent care services. Results There was variation between the six cases in how interviewees described three parts of their emergency and urgent care systems. First, interviewees’ descriptions revealed variation in the availability of services before patients decided to attend emergency departments. Poor availability of general practice out of hours services in some of the cases reportedly made attendance at emergency departments the easier option for patients. Second, there was variation in how interviewees described patients being dealt with during their emergency department visit in terms of availability of senior review by specialists and in coding practices when patients were at risk of breaching the NHS’s 4-hour waiting time target. Third, there was variability in services described as facilitating discharge home from emergency departments. In some cases, emergency department staff described dealing with multiple agencies in multiple localities outside the hospital, making admission the easier option. In other cases, proactive multidisciplinary rapid assessment teams were described as available to avoid admissions. Perceptions of resources available out of hours and the extent of integration between different health services, and between health and social services, also differed by case. Conclusions This comparative case study approach identified further factors that may affect avoidable emergency admissions. Initiatives to improve GP out of hours services, make coding more accurately reflect patient experience, increase senior review in emergency departments, offer proactive multidisciplinary admission avoidance teams, improve the availability of out of hours care in the wider emergency and urgent care system, and increase service integration may reduce avoidable admissions. Evaluation of such initiatives would be necessary before wide-scale adoption.

Objectives Paramedics routinely make critical decisions about the most appropriate care to deliver in a complex system characterized by significant variation in patient case-mix, care pathways and linked service providers. There has been little research carried out in the ambulance service to identify areas of risk associated with decisions about patient care. The aim of this study was to explore systemic influences on decision making by paramedics relating to care transitions to identify potential risk factors. Methods An exploratory multi-method qualitative study was conducted in three English National Health Service (NHS) Ambulance Service Trusts, focusing on decision making by paramedic and specialist paramedic staff. Researchers observed 57 staff across 34 shifts. Ten staff completed digital diaries and three focus groups were conducted with 21 staff. Results Nine types of decision were identified, ranging from emergency department conveyance and specialist emergency pathways to non-conveyance. Seven overarching systemic influences and risk factors potentially influencing decision making were identified: demand; performance priorities; access to care options; risk tolerance; training and development; communication and feedback and resources. Conclusions Use of multiple methods provided a consistent picture of key systemic influences and potential risk factors. The study highlighted the increased complexity of paramedic decisions and multi-level system influences that may exacerbate risk. The findings have implications at the level of individual NHS Ambulance Service Trusts (e.g. ensuring an appropriately skilled workforce to manage diverse patient needs and reduce emergency department conveyance) and at the wider prehospital emergency care system level (e.g. ensuring access to appropriate patient care options as alternatives to the emergency department).

Background Some emergency admissions can be avoided if acute exacerbations of health problems are managed by the range of health services providing emergency and urgent care.\ud \ud Aim To identify system-wide factors explaining variation in age sex adjusted admission rates for conditions rich in avoidable admissions.\ud \ud Design National ecological study.\ud \ud Setting 152 emergency and urgent care systems in England.\ud \ud Methods Hospital Episode Statistics data on emergency admissions were used to calculate an age sex adjusted admission rate for conditions rich in avoidable admissions for each emergency and urgent care system in England for 2008–2011.\ud \ud Results There were 3 273 395 relevant admissions in 2008–2011, accounting for 22% of all emergency admissions. The mean age sex adjusted admission rate was 2258 per year per 100 000 population, with a 3.4-fold variation between systems (1268 and 4359). Factors beyond the control of health services explained the majority of variation: unemployment rates explained 72%, with urban/rural status explaining further variation (R2=75%). Factors related to emergency departments, hospitals, emergency ambulance services and general practice explained further variation (R2=85%): the attendance rate at emergency departments, percentage of emergency department attendances converted to admissions, percentage of emergency admissions staying less than a day, percentage of emergency ambulance calls not transported to hospital and perceived access to general practice within 48 h.\ud \ud Conclusions Interventions to reduce avoidable admissions should be targeted at deprived communities. Better use of emergency departments, ambulance services and primary care could further reduce avoidable emergency admissions.

Background As part of a study examining systemic influences on conveyance decisions by paramedics and potential threats to patient safety, stakeholder workshops were conducted with three Ambulance Service Trusts in England. The study identified seven overarching systemic influences: demand; priorities; access to care; risk tolerance; training, communication and resources. The aim of the workshops was to elicit feedback on the findings and identify perceived areas for future intervention and research. Attendees were also asked to rank the seven threats to patient safety in terms of their perceived importance for future attention. Methods A total of 45 individuals attended across all the workshops, 28 ambulance service staff and 17 service user representatives. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. A paper based paired comparison approach was used to produce an ordinal ranking to illustrate the relative prioritisation of issues. Analysis included testing for internal consistency and between-rater agreement for this relatively small sample. Findings The two highest ranking priorities were training and development, as well as access to care. The areas for intervention identified represent what attendees perceived as feasible to undertake and relate to: care options; cross boundary working; managing demand; staff development; information and feedback; and commissioning decisions. Perceived areas for research specifically address conveyance decisions and potential threats to patient safety. 17 areas for research were proposed that directly relate to six of the systemic threats to patient safety. Conclusions Feedback workshops were effective in the validation of findings as well as providing an opportunity to identify priorities for future interventions and research. They also facilitated discussion between a variety of Ambulance Service staff and service user representatives. Ongoing collaboration between members of the research team has enabled some of the research recommendations to be explored as part of a mutually agreed research agenda.

Background The contribution of service users to identifying and prioritising research issues is vital to make practice and policy more relevant to their needs. Their experiences and knowledge can complement those of clinicians, health professionals and researchers. The aim of this research was to explore service-user perceptions of ambulance service care and patient safety. Methods Three service-users focus groups (n=23) were conducted in three different Ambulance Service Trust regions and enabled participants to discuss their respective perceptions, experiences and concerns. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings Service-users identified a number of concerns. The skills of call handlers in managing two-way communication at the initial call stage was perceived as critical to informing appropriate triage decisions; the risk at this stage was considered to be higher where callers have communication difficulties. Participants emphasised the importance of patient involvement in decisions made at-scene, and carers/advocates where appropriate; however, different levels of understanding in relation to their rights were apparent. Awareness of new ambulance service roles and alternatives to ED conveyance also varied. Non-conveyance was viewed as an acceptable option and even preferable where appropriate, and where alternative care options are assured. Participants were aware of the demands facing front-line staff and the impact of 24/7 accessibility, while other services were perceived as more difficult to access, in part due to limited awareness. Risk aversion amongst the public and health professionals was also perceived as a potential contributor to the increased demand for emergency care. Conclusions Despite the relatively small number of participants, the findings provide useful service-user perspectives relevant to pre-hospital emergency care policy and practice, as well as the wider urgent and emergency care context. It is important that such views can be represented through public/patient involvement in decision making at organisational and service commissioning level.

Decisions made by ambulance staff are often time-critical and based on limited information. Wrong decisions could have serious consequences for patients but little is known about areas of risk associated with decisions about patient care. We aimed to examine system influences on decision making in the ambulance service setting focusing on paramedic roles.