Propuesta y validación del Protocolo de Adecuación de Urgencias Hospitalarias modificado

Implementation of a general practitioner cooperative adjacent to the emergency department of a hospital increases the caseload for the GPC but not for the emergency department

BACKGROUND

The implementation of general practitioner cooperatives (GPC) for out-of-hours (OOH) primary care, raises the question if the location of a GPC adjacent to a hospital reduces the OOH caseload of the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Two natural experiments were used in this before-after study, the effect of the implementation of two GPCs in two different regions on the out-of-hours caseload of the local EDs was compared. One GPC was located adjacent to the ED of a general hospital, the other was not. GPCs (or rota systems) and EDs in comparable regions were selected as control groups during the same study period. The study was performed in Flanders (Belgium) with no gatekeeping function for general practitioners (GPs).

RESULTS

After implementation of the GPC there was a significantly increase in caseload at the GPC in the two regions, mainly due to an increase of consultations with small children. There were no significant changes in caseload at the ED services. Self-referrals' to the ED did not change significantly. For the GPs the number of home visits decreased during out-of-hours in one region.

CONCLUSION

In a country with no gatekeeping role for GPs, implementing a GPC increased the out-of-hours caseload of the GPCs. The caseload of the EDs stabilised during the study period.

What's the effect of the implementation of general practitioner cooperatives on caseload? Prospective intervention study on primary and secondary care

Background

Out-of-hours care in the primary care setting is rapidly changing and evolving towards general practitioner 'cooperatives' (GPC). GPCs already exist in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, all countries with strong general practice, including gatekeepers' role. This intervention study reports the use and caseload of out-of-hours care before and after implementation of a GPC in a well subscribed region in a country with an open access health care system and no gatekeepers' role for general practice.

Methods

We used a prospective before/after interventional study design. The intervention was the implementation of a GPC.

Results

One year after the implementation of a GPC, the number of patient contacts in the intervention region significantly increased at the GPC (OR: 1.645; 95% CI: 1.439-1.880), while there were no significant changes in patient contacts at the Emergency Department (ED) or in other regions where a simultaneous registration was performed. Although home visits decreased in all general practitioner registrations, the difference was more pronounced in the intervention region (intervention region: OR: 0.515; 95% CI: 0.411-0.646, other regions: OR: 0.743; 95% CI: 0.608-0.908). At the ED we observed a decrease in the number of trauma cases (OR: 0.789; 95% CI: 0.648-0.960) and of patients who came to hospital by ambulance (OR: 0.687; 95% CI: 0.565-0.836).

Conclusions

One year after its implementation more people seek help at the GPC, while the number of contacts at the ED remains the same. The most prominent changes in caseload are found in the trauma cases. Establishing a GPC in an open health care system, might redirect some patients with particular medical problems to primary care. This could lead to a lowering of costs or a more cost-effective out of hours care, but further research should focus on effective usage to divert patient flows and on quality and outcome of care.

Inappropriate use of emergency services: a systematic review of prevalence and associated factors

This systematic review aimed to measure the prevalence of inappropriate emergency department (ED) use by adults and associated factors. The review included 31 articles published in the last 12 years. Prevalence of inappropriate ED use varied from 20 to 40% and was associated with age and income. Female patients, those without co-morbidities, without a regular physician, without a regular source of care, and those not referred to the ED by a physician also showed more inappropriate ED use, with the relative risk varying from 1.12 to 2.42. Difficulties in accessing primary health care (difficulties in setting appointments, longer waiting periods, and short business hours at the primary health care service) were also associated with inappropriate ED use. Thus, primary care requires fully qualified patient reception and efficient triage to promptly attend cases that cannot wait. It is also necessary to orient the population on situations in which they should go to the ED and on the disadvantages of consulting the ED when the case is not really urgent.

Análisis de la casuística de los pacientes derivables desde urgencias a atención primaria

OBJECTIVE

Structured emergency department (ED) triage scales can be used to develop patient referral strategies from the ED to primary care. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the percentage of patients who could potentially be referred from triage to primary care and to describe their clinical characteristics.

METHODS

We analyzed all patients with low acuity (triage levels IV and V) and low complexity (patients discharged from the ED) triaged during 2003 with the Andorran Triage Model in the ED and estimated the percentage of patients who could potentially be referred on the basis of three primary care models: A, centers unable to deal with emergencies or perform complementary investigations; B, centers able to deal with emergencies and perform complementary investigations, and C, centers able to deal with emergencies but unable to perform complementary investigations.

RESULTS

Of the 25,319 patients included in the study, 5.63% could be referred to model A, 75.22% to model B and 33.36% to model C. A total of 81.04% of these model C patients were classified in seven symptomatic categories: wounds and traumatisms, inflammation or fever, pediatric problems, rhinolaryngological infection or alterations, ocular symptoms, pain and cutaneous allergy or reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Casemix analysis, based on the level of acuity and discharge criteria, can be used to establish the percentage of patients that could potentially be referred to primary care. Analysis of their clinical profile is useful to design referral protocols.