The need to improve the interface between in-hours and out-of-hours GP care, and between out-of-hours care and self-care

Does risk and urgency of requested out-of-hours general practitioners care differ for people with intellectual disabilities in residential settings compared with the general population in the Netherlands? A cross-sectional routine data-based study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in residential setting were more likely than people from the general population to request out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) care and whether these requests had a similar level of urgency.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional routine data-based study.

SETTING

Two GP cooperatives providing out-of-hours primary care in an area in the Netherlands.

POPULATION

432 582 persons living in the out-of-hours service areas, of which 1448 could be identified as having an ID.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

GP cooperative records of all contacts in 2014 for people with and without ID were used to calculate the relative risk of requesting care and the associated level of urgency.

RESULTS

Of the people with ID (448/1448), 30.9% requested out-of-hours GP care, whereas for the general population this was 18.4% (79 206/431 134), resulting in a relative risk of 1.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 1.8). We found a different distribution of urgency level for people with and without ID. Generally, requests for people with ID were rated as less urgent.

CONCLUSION

People with ID in residential setting were more likely to request out-of-hours GP care than the general population. The distribution of the urgency level of requests differed between the two groups. The high percentage of demands relating to people with ID requesting counselling and advice suggests that some out-of-hours GP care may be avoidable. However, more insight is needed into the nature of out-of-hours primary care requests of people with ID to direct structural and reasonable adjustments towards the improvement of health information exchange in and around-the-clock access to primary care for people with ID.

After-hours medical deputising services: patterns of use by older people

OBJECTIVES

To examine how older people use an after-hours medical deputising service that arranges home visits by locum general practitioners; to identify differences in how people who live in the community and those who live in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) use this service.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected administrative data from the Melbourne Medical Deputising Service (MMDS) for the 5-year period, 1 January 2008 - 31 December 2012. Data for older people (≥ 70 years old) residing in greater Melbourne and surrounding areas were analysed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Numbers and rates of MMDS bookings for acute after-hours care, stratified according to living arrangements (RACF v community-dwelling residents).

RESULTS

Of the 357 112 bookings logged for older patients during 2008-2012, 81% were for RACF patients, a disproportionate use of the service compared with that by older people dwelling in the community. Most MMDS bookings resulted in a locum GP visiting the patient. During 2008-2012, the booking rate for RACFs increased from 121 to 168 per 1000 people aged 70 years or more, a 39% increase; the booking rate for people not living in RACFs increased from 33 to 40 per 1000 people aged 70 years or more, a 21% increase.

CONCLUSIONS

After-hours locum GPs booked through the MMDS mainly attended patients living in RACFs during 2008-2012. Further research is required to determine the reasons for differences in the use of locum services by older people living in RACFs and in the community.

What evidence is there on the effectiveness of different models of delivering urgent care? A rapid review

Background

In 2013 NHS England set out its strategy for the development of an emergency and urgent care system that is more responsive to patients’ needs, improves outcomes and delivers clinically excellent and safe care. Knowledge about the current evidence base on models for provision of safe and effective urgent care, and the gaps in evidence that need to be addressed, can support this process.

Objective

The purpose of the evidence synthesis is to assess the nature and quality of the existing evidence base on delivery of emergency and urgent care services and identify gaps that require further primary research or evidence synthesis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Web of Science.

Methods

We have conducted a rapid, framework-based, evidence synthesis approach. Five separate reviews linked to themes in the NHS England review were conducted. One general and five theme-specific database searches were conducted for the years 1995–2014. Relevant systematic reviews and additional primary research papers were included and narrative assessment of evidence quality was conducted for each review.

Results

The review was completed in 6 months. In total, 45 systematic reviews and 102 primary research studies have been included across all five reviews. The key findings for each review are as follows: (1) demand – there is little empirical evidence to explain increases in demand for urgent care; (2) telephone triage – overall, these services provide appropriate and safe decision-making with high patient satisfaction, but the required clinical skill mix and effectiveness in a system is unclear; (3) extended paramedic roles have been implemented in various health settings and appear to be successful at reducing the number of transports to hospital, making safe decisions about the need for transport and delivering acceptable, cost-effective care out of hospital; (4) emergency department (ED) – the evidence on co-location of general practitioner services with EDs indicates that there is potential to improve care. The attempt to summarise the evidence about wider ED operations proved to be too complex and further focused reviews are needed; and (5) there is no empirical evidence to support the design and development of urgent care networks.

Limitations

Although there is a large body of evidence on relevant interventions, much of it is weak, with only very small numbers of randomised controlled trials identified. Evidence is dominated by single-site studies, many of which were uncontrolled.

Conclusions

The evidence gaps of most relevance to the delivery of services are (1) a requirement for more detailed understanding and mapping of the characteristics of demand to inform service planning; (2) assessment of the current state of urgent care network development and evaluation of the effectiveness of different models; and (3) expanding the current evidence base on existing interventions that are viewed as central to delivery of the NHS England plan by assessing the implications of increasing interventions at scale and measuring costs and system impact. It would be prudent to develop a national picture of existing pilot projects or interventions in development to support decisions about research commissioning.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

Establishing the validity of English GP Patient Survey items evaluating out-of-hours care

Background

A 2014 national audit used the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) to compare service users’ experience of out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) services, yet there is no published evidence on the validity of these GPPS items.

Objectives

Establish the construct and concurrent validity of GPPS items evaluating service users’ experience of GP out-of-hours care.

Methods

Cross-sectional postal survey of service users (n=1396) of six English out-of-hours providers. Participants reported on four GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care (three items modified following cognitive interviews with service users), and 14 evaluative items from the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire (OPQ). Construct validity was assessed through correlations between any reliable (Cochran's α>0.7) scales, as suggested by a principal component analysis of the modified GPPS items, with the ‘entry access’ (four items) and ‘consultation satisfaction’ (10 items) OPQ subscales. Concurrent validity was determined by investigating whether each modified GPPS item was associated with thematically related items from the OPQ using linear regressions.

Results

The modified GPPS item-set formed a single scale (α=0.77), which summarised the two-component structure of the OPQ moderately well; explaining 39.7% of variation in the ‘entry access’ scores (r=0.63) and 44.0% of variation in the ‘consultation satisfaction’ scores (r=0.66), demonstrating acceptable construct validity. Concurrent validity was verified as each modified GPPS item was highly associated with a distinct set of related items from the OPQ.

Conclusions

Minor modifications are required for the English GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care to improve comprehension by service users. A modified question set was demonstrated to comprise a valid measure of service users’ overall satisfaction with out-of-hours care received. This demonstrates the potential for the use of as few as four items in benchmarking providers and assisting services in identifying, implementing and assessing quality improvement initiatives.

Patients' experience of outsourcing and care related to magnetic resonance examinations

BACKGROUND

Outsourcing radiological examinations from public university hospitals affects the patient, who has to attend a different clinic or hospital for the radiological examination. We currently have a limited understanding of how patients view outsourcing and their care related to MR examinations.

AIM

To examine the experiences of patients who are sent to private radiology units when their referrals for MR examinations are outsourced from a university hospital, as well as to explore factors which influence patient satisfaction regarding the quality of care related to the MR examination.

METHODS

A group of patients (n = 160) referred for MR examinations and either examined at a university hospital or at an external private unit were interviewed. The interview was designed as a verbal questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Student's t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Pearson's correlation.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent of the patients could neither choose nor influence the location at which they were examined. For those who could, aspects that influenced the patient's choice of radiology department were: short waiting time 79% (127/160), ease of traveling to the radiology department 68% (110/160), and short distance to their home or work 58% (93/160). For 40% (60/160) of the patients, a short time in the waiting room was related to a positive experience of the MR examination.

CONCLUSION

If patients were informed about outsourcing and could also choose where to have their examination, key factors contributing to patient satisfaction could be met even when MR examinations are outsourced.

How do patients respond when confronted with telephone access barriers to care?

OBJECTIVE

To gain an in-depth understanding of patient barriers to accessing telephone care, subsequent responses to telephone access issues and recommendations for system improvement within a large integrated health-care system.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative focus group study.

METHODS

One focus group was conducted at each of 17 Veterans Affairs facilities with a total of 123 Veteran users of VA health care. All facilities followed a focus group discussion guide, and purposively sampled patients receiving care at their VA facility in primary and/or specialty care. Focus groups' recordings were sent to the authors' independent evaluation centre, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis methodology.

RESULTS

Participants described many issues with the phone system that resulted in delays to care needs being addressed, including difficulty getting someone to answer the phone, out-dated phone directories, frequent disconnections and incorrect transfers. Participants most frequently responded to access issues by doing nothing or waiting to contact at a later time, or seeking unscheduled in-person care in the emergency department or primary care clinic. Participants offered recommendations for improving telephone care, including access to direct extensions, and upgrades to the telephone system.

CONCLUSIONS

Telephone access issues could result in increased patient harm and/or increased wait times for in-person primary care or emergency services. Periodic evaluation of telephone systems is necessary to ensure telephone systems adequately meet patient needs while using resources efficiently to optimize the delivery of high quality, safe health care.

Exploring patients' self-reported experiences of out-of-hours primary care and their suggestions for improvement: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Out-of-hours services for primary care provision are increasing in policy relevance. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore service users' recent experiences of out-of-hours services and to identify suggestions for improvement for services and practitioners involved.

METHODS

We used data from a cross-sectional survey of service users' self-reported experiences of 13 out-of-hours centres in Wales. Three hundred and forty-one respondents provided free-text comments focusing on suggestions for improvement within the survey instrument (the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire). A coding framework was based on previous literature focusing on patients' experiences of out-of-hours services, built upon and refined as it was systematically applied to the data. Emergent themes and subthemes were charted and interpreted to comprise the findings.

RESULTS

Central themes emerged from users' perspectives of the structure of out-of-hours services, process of care and outcomes for users. Themes included long waiting times, perceived quality of service user-practitioner communication, consideration for parents and children and accessibility of the service and medication. Suggestions for improving care were made across these themes, including triaging patients more effectively and efficiently, addressing specific aspects of practitioners' communication with patients, reconsidering the size of areas covered by services and number of professionals required for the population covered, extending GP and pharmacy opening times and medication delivery services.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider ways to address service users' principal concerns surrounding out-of-hours services. Debate is required about prioritizing and implementing potential improvements to out-of-hours services in the light of resource constraints.