Emergency admission risk stratification tools in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey of availability and use.

<bold>Background: </bold>Stratifying patient populations by risk of adverse events was believed to support preventive care for those identified, but recent evidence does not support this. Emergency admission risk stratification (EARS) tools have been widely promoted in UK policy and GP contracts.<bold>Aim: </bold>To describe availability and use of EARS tools across the UK, and identify factors perceived to influence implementation.<bold>Design and Setting: </bold>Cross-sectional survey in UK.<bold>Method: </bold>Online survey of 235 organisations responsible for UK primary care: 209 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England; 14 health boards in Scotland; seven health boards in Wales; and five local commissioning groups (LCGs) in Northern Ireland. Analysis results are presented using descriptive statistics for closed questions and by theme for open questions.<bold>Results: </bold>Responses were analysed from 171 (72.8%) organisations, of which 148 (86.5%) reported that risk tools were available in their areas. Organisations identified 39 different EARS tools in use. Promotion by NHS commissioners, involvement of clinical leaders, and engagement of practice managers were identified as the most important factors in encouraging use of tools by general practices. High staff workloads and information governance were identified as important barriers. Tools were most frequently used to identify individual patients, but also for service planning. Nearly 40% of areas using EARS tools reported introducing or realigning services as a result, but relatively few reported use for service evaluation.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>EARS tools are widely available across the UK, although there is variation by region. There remains a need to align policy and practice with research evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]