To GP or not to GP: a natural experiment in children triaged to see a GP in a tertiary paediatric emergency department (ED)

Understanding Strategies to Reduce the Impact of Non-urgent Visits to the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT

The pediatric emergency department (PED) is increasingly being used for non-urgent reasons. This impacts PED input and throughput, and contributes to overcrowding. To identify solutions, it is essential to identify and describe the approaches that have been trialed.

OBJECTIVE

We completed a scoping review to identify and then describe the design and outcomes of all initiatives undertaken to reduce the impact of non-urgent visits on the PED.

DATA SOURCES

We searched 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM, and CINAHL) to identify research published from the database inception until March 31, 2024.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies met our inclusion criteria if they focused on the pediatric ED, defined non-urgent visits, described an intervention (hypothesizing it would reduce the impact of non-urgent visits on the PED), and reported on the interventions impact.

DATA EXTRACTION

The title and abstract of each study were independently screened for inclusion by 2 reviewers (E.Q., K.N.), and disagreements were resolved by deliberation until consensus was achieved. This process was then repeated for the full text of all articles.

RESULTS

In total, we screened 11,600 articles and 20 were included. Nine interventions focused on PED input, 10 on PED throughput, and 1 on both PED input and throughput. Definitions of non-urgent visits and outcomes measures used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention differed between studies. Three types of strategies employed to reduce the impact of non-urgent visits on the PED were identified, these include (1) engaging nonpediatric emergency medicine clinicians by including them into the PED or connecting non-urgent patients to community locations for care, (2) reorganizing PED operations in anticipation of non-urgent visits, and (3) providing education to prevent future non-urgent visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent definitions of non-urgent visits and standardized outcome measures may allow for more precise comparisons between studies. We identify 3 commonly employed strategies that may help reduce the impact of non-urgent visits on the PED.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation

Background

Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models.

Design

Mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Methods

Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development.

Results

General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models.

Limitations

The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services.

Future work

The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Organisational models at the emergency department to reduce hospital admissions among paediatric patients: a systematic literature review

Paediatric attendances at the emergency department (ED) are often admitted to the hospital less than 24 h to allow time for more extended evaluation. Innovative organisational models could prevent these hospital admissions without compromising safety or quality of delivered care. Therefore, this systematic review identifies evidence on organisational models at the ED with the primary aim to reduce hospital admissions among paediatric patients. Following the PRISMA guidelines, three bibliographic databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched. Studies on organisational models in Western countries, published between January 2009 and January 2021, which applied a comparative design or review and studied at least hospital admission rates, were included. Analyses were mainly descriptive because of the high heterogeneity among included publications. The primary outcome is hospital admission rates. Secondary outcomes are ED length of stay (LOS), waiting time, and patient satisfaction. Sixteen publications described several innovative organisational models ranging from the creation of dedicated units for paediatric patients, innovative staffing models to bringing paediatric critical care physicians to patients at rural EDs. However, the effect on hospital admission rates and other outcomes are inconclusive, and some organisational models may improve certain outcomes in certain settings or vice versa. It appears that a paediatric consultation liaison team has the most consistent effect on hospital admission rates and LOS of paediatric patients presenting with mental problems at the ED. Implementing new innovative organisational models at the ED for paediatric patients could be worthwhile to decrease hospital admissions. However, the existing evidence is of rather weak quality. Future service developments should, therefore, be conducted in a way that allows objective evaluation.

Interventions to reduce acute paediatric hospital admissions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Admission rates are rising despite no change to burden of illness, and interventions to reduce unscheduled admission to hospital safely may be justified.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine admission prevention strategies and report long-term follow-up of admission prevention initiatives.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, OVID SP, PsychINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded/ISI Web of Science, The Cochrane Library from inception to time of writing. Reference lists were hand searched.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and before-and-after studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged <18 years.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were independently screened by two reviewers with final screening by a third. Data extraction and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklist completion (for risk of bias assessment) were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included of whom 24 were before-and-after studies and 4 were studies comparing outcomes between non-randomised groups. Interventions included referral pathways, staff reconfiguration, new healthcare facilities and telemedicine. The strongest evidence for admission prevention was seen in asthma-specific referral pathways (n=6) showing 34% (95% CI 28 to 39) reduction, but with evidence of publication bias. Other pathways showed inconsistent results or were insufficient for wider interpretation. Staffing reconfiguration showed reduced admissions in two studies, and shorter length of stay in one. Short stay admission units reduced admissions in three studies.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

There is little robust evidence to support interventions aimed at preventing paediatric admissions and further research is needed.

Learning from diagnostic errors to improve patient safety when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: incorporating realist methodology into patient safety incident report analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13-14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05-30.11.15).

RESULTS

Nine Coroners' reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013-2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005-2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children.

CONCLUSION

Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites.

Variation in hospital admission in febrile children evaluated at the Emergency Department (ED) in Europe: PERFORM, a multicentre prospective observational study

Objectives

Hospitalisation is frequently used as a marker of disease severity in observational Emergency Department (ED) studies. The comparison of ED admission rates is complex in potentially being influenced by the characteristics of the region, ED, physician and patient. We aimed to study variation in ED admission rates of febrile children, to assess whether variation could be explained by disease severity and to identify patient groups with large variation, in order to use this to reduce unnecessary health care utilization that is often due to practice variation.

Design

MOFICHE (Management and Outcome of Fever in children in Europe, part of the PERFORM study, www.perform2020.org), is a prospective cohort study using routinely collected data on febrile children regarding patient characteristics (age, referral, vital signs and clinical alarming signs), diagnostic tests, therapy, diagnosis and hospital admission.

Setting and participants

Data were collected on febrile children aged 0–18 years presenting to 12 European EDs (2017–2018).

Main outcome measures

We compared admission rates between EDs by using standardised admission rates after adjusting for patient characteristics and initiated tests at the ED, where standardised rates >1 demonstrate higher admission rates than expected and rates <1 indicate lower rates than expected based on the ED patient population.

Results

We included 38,120 children. Of those, 9.695 (25.4%) were admitted to a general ward (range EDs 5.1–54.5%). Adjusted standardised admission rates ranged between 0.6 and 1.5. The largest variation was seen in short admission rates (0.1–5.0), PICU admission rates (0.2–2.2), upper respiratory tract infections (0.4–1.7) and fever without focus (0.5–2.7). Variation was small in sepsis/meningitis (0.9–1.1).

Conclusions

Large variation exists in admission rates of febrile children evaluated at European EDs, however, this variation is largely reduced after correcting for patient characteristics and therefore overall admission rates seem to adequately reflect disease severity or a potential for a severe disease course. However, for certain patient groups variation remains high even after adjusting for patient characteristics.

Management of non-urgent paediatric emergency department attendances by GPs: a retrospective observational study

Background

Non-urgent emergency department (ED) attendances are common among children. Primary care management may not only be more clinically appropriate, but may also improve patient experience and be more cost-effective.

Aim

To determine the impact on admissions, waiting times, antibiotic prescribing, and treatment costs of integrating a GP into a paediatric ED.

Design and setting

Retrospective cohort study explored non-urgent ED presentations in a paediatric ED in north-west England.

Method

From 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2017, a GP was situated in the ED from 2.00 pm until 10.00 pm, 7 days a week. All children triaged as ‘green’ using the Manchester Triage System (non-urgent) were considered to be ‘GP appropriate’. In cases of GP non-availability, children considered non-urgent were managed by ED staff. Clinical and operational outcomes, as well as the healthcare costs of children managed by GPs and ED staff across the same timeframe over a 2-year period were compared.

Results

Of 115 000 children attending the ED over the study period, a complete set of data were available for 13 099 categorised as ‘GP appropriate’; of these, 8404 (64.2%) were managed by GPs and 4695 (35.8%) by ED staff. Median duration of ED stay was 39 min (interquartile range [IQR] 16–108 min) in the GP group and 165 min (IQR 104–222 min) in the ED group (P<0.001). Children in the GP group were less likely to be admitted as inpatients (odds ratio [OR] 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13 to 0.20) and less likely to wait >4 hours before being admitted or discharged (OR 0.11; 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.13), but were more likely to receive antibiotics (OR 1.42; 95% CI = 1.27 to 1.58). Treatment costs were 18.4% lower in the group managed by the GP (P<0.0001).

Conclusion

Given the rising demand for children’s emergency services, GP in ED care models may improve the management of non-urgent ED presentations. However, further research that incorporates causative study designs is required.

Trends in healthcare use in children aged less than 15 years: a population-based cohort study in England from 2007 to 2017

OBJECTIVE

To describe changing use of primary care in relation to use of urgent care and planned hospital services by children aged less than 15 years in England in the decade following major primary care reforms from 2007 to 2017 DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

We used linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to study children's primary care consultations and use of hospital care including emergency department (ED) visits, emergency and elective admissions to hospital and outpatient visits to specialists.

RESULTS

Between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2017, there were 7 604 024 general practitioner (GP) consultations, 981 684 ED visits, 287 719 emergency hospital admissions, 2 253 533 outpatient visits and 194 034 elective admissions among 1 484 455 children aged less than 15 years. Age-standardised GP consultation rates fell (-1.0%/year) to 1864 per 1000 child-years in 2017 in all age bands except infants rising by 1%/year to 6722 per 1000/child-years in 2017. ED visit rates increased by 1.6%/year to 369 per 1000 child-years in 2017, with steeper rises of 3.9%/year in infants (780 per 1000 child-years in 2017). Emergency hospital admission rates rose steadily by 3%/year to 86 per 1000 child-years and outpatient visit rates rose to 724 per 1000 child-years in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade since National Health Service primary care reforms, GP consultation rates have fallen for all children, except for infants. Children's use of hospital urgent and outpatient care has risen in all ages, especially infants. These changes signify the need for better access and provision of specialist and community-based support for families with young children.

The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review

OBJECTIVES

Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak.

DESIGN

Rapid realist literature review.

SETTING

Emergency departments.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments.

AIM

To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system.

RESULTS

Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017069741.

General practitioners providing non-urgent care in emergency department: a natural experiment

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether care provided by general practitioners (GPs) to non-urgent patients in the emergency department differs significantly from care provided by usual accident and emergency (A&E) staff in terms of process outcomes and A&E clinical quality indicators.

DESIGN

Propensity score matched cohort study.

SETTING

GPs in A&E colocated within the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust between May 2015 and March 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

Non-urgent attendances visits to the A&E department.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Process outcomes (any investigation, any blood investigation, any radiological investigation, any intervention, admission and referrals) and A&E clinical indicators (spent 4 hours plus, left without being seen and 7-day reattendance).

RESULTS

A total of 5426 patients seen by GPs in A&E were matched with 10 852 patients seen by emergency physicians (ratio 1:2). Compared with standard care in A&E, GPs in A&E significantly: admitted fewer patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.31), referred fewer patients to other specialists (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.40), ordered fewer radiological investigations (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.42), ordered fewer blood tests (0.57, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.61) and ordered fewer investigations (0.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.96). However, they intervened more, offered more primary care follow-up (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.67 to 1.89) and referred more patients to outpatient and other A&E clinics (RR 2.29, 95% CI 2.10 to 2.49). Patients seen by GPs in A&E were on average less likely to spend 4 hours plus in A&E (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.45) compared with standard care in A&E. There was no difference in reattendance after 7 days (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09).

CONCLUSION

GPs in A&E tended to manage self-reporting minor cases with fewer resources than standard care in A&E, without increasing reattendance rates.