Tendency to call an ambulance or attend an emergency department for minor or non-urgent problems: a vignette-based population survey in Britain

Public Beliefs About Accessibility and Quality of Emergency Departments in Germany

Background

It is well established that emergency department (ED) crowding leads to worse health outcomes. Although various patient surveys provide information about reasons to visit EDs, less is known in terms of beliefs about EDs among the general population. This study examines public beliefs regarding accessibility and quality of EDs and their associations with social characteristics (gender, age, education, immigration background) as well as knowledge about emergency care services and health literacy.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study based on a random sample of 2,404 adults living in Hamburg, Germany, in winter 2021/2022. We developed eight statements regarding accessibility and quality of EDs leading to two scales (Cronbach's α accessibility = 0.76 and quality of care = 0.75). Descriptive statistics of the eight items are shown and linear regression were conducted to determine associations of the two scales with social characteristics as well as knowledge about emergency care services and health literacy (HLS-EU-Q6).

Results

Nearly 44% of the respondents agreed that "you can always go to an ED, if you do not get a short-term appointment with a general practitioner or specialist." And 38% agreed with the statement, "If you do not have the time during normal practice hours due to your work, you can always go to an ED." In terms of quality, 38% believed that doctors in EDs are more competent than doctors in general practice, and 25% believed that doctors in EDs are more competent than doctors in specialized practices. In the fully adjusted model, public beliefs about emergency care accessibility and quality of EDs were significantly associated with all social characteristics and knowledge of emergency care options with the strongest associations between knowledge and accessibility (β = -0.17; P < 0.001) and between education and quality (β = -0.23; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

We found endorsement of public beliefs about accessibility and quality of EDs that can lead to inappropriate utilization. Our results also suggest that knowledge of different emergency services plays an important role. Therefore, after system-related reorganizations of emergency care, information campaigns about such services tailored to socially deprived populations may help alleviate the issue of crowding.

The Use of Medical Services for Low-Acuity Emergency Cases in Germany: Protocol for a Multicenter Observational Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The increasing number of requests for help for acutely ill patients and their management is a major problem in the health systems of many countries, but especially in Germany. Rescue coordination centers and ambulances in Germany are increasingly overloaded. As a result, rides as a part of rescue operations have been increasing in length for years, yet a relevant proportion of these operations represent low-acuity calls (LACs). The basic objective of this pilot study is the quantitative analysis of the potential misuse of requests to the rescue control center. Indications for alternative treatment options and how to handle these treatment options in nonacute, non-life-threatening health conditions, such as minor injuries or minor infectious diseases, will be assessed. The identification of these LACs is vital in order to prevent health care resources in emergency medical care becoming inadequate.

OBJECTIVE

The overarching goal of this study is to determine the percentage of unnecessary rescue missions on site and subsequently to obtain an impression of the paramedics' assessment of alternative treatment options or alternative methods of rescue transportation.

METHODS

This will be an exploratory, noninterventional, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach. The study is multicentric, with 21 ambulances in 12 different locations. The data for this study were collected via a questionnaire, newly developed for this study, for rescue personnel. Additionally, secondary data from the responsible control center will be linked and processed in an initial descriptive analysis. This descriptive analysis will form the basis for a subsequent variance analysis.

RESULTS

Data collection started as projected on September 18, 2023, and was ongoing until end of November 2023. We expect the documentation of several thousand rescue operations. We expect the following study results: (1) many unnecessary rescue operations, (2) immediate on-site assessment of correct care and treatment, and (3) patients' reasons for calling a rescue coordination center.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first observational study in which acute rescue operations are recorded on site. The focus of this study is on the trained paramedics' assessment of whether rescue operations are necessary or not. Additionally, alternative treatments, such as out-of-hours care service or primary care service, are shown for each individual case. The study also intends to cover the question of which factors are relevant and statistically significantly connected to the misuse of ambulances.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Register for Clinical Studies (Deutsches Register für Klinische Studien) DRKS00032510; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00032510.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/54002.

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.

Variations in the intended utilization of emergency care in case of gastrointestinal diseases

Frequent utilization of emergency care and overcrowded emergency departments (EDs) are highly relevant topics due to their harmful consequences for patients and staff. The present study examines variations of intended health care use in urgent and non-urgent cases among the general population. In a cross-sectional telephone survey, a sample of N = 1,204 adults residing in Hamburg, Germany, was randomly drawn. At the beginning of the survey, one of 24 different vignettes (case stories) describing symptoms of inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases were presented to the participants. The vignettes varied in sex (male/female), age (15, 49, 72 years), daytime (Tuesday morning, Tuesday evening), and urgency (low, high). Participants were asked in an open-ended question about their primal intended utilization if they or their children would be affected by such symptoms. Overall, about 14 % chose emergency facilities (ED, ambulance, emergency practice) despite presentation of non-urgent conditions (n = 602). Intended emergency care use varied considerably even if the degree of urgency was comparable. Adolescence, male sex, and symptoms occurring in the evening were associated with increased ED and ambulance use. Inappropriate utilization of ED and ambulance (analyses regarding utilization due to non-urgent problems) was more often observed among male respondents and those with a migration background (1st generation). Information campaigns focused on emergency care use and reorganisation of emergency care wards are possible interventions.

Evaluating a new emergency department avoidance service for older people: patient and relative experiences

BACKGROUND

High emergency department (ED) usage by older individuals for non-emergencies is a global concern. ED avoidance initiatives have proven effective in addressing this issue. To specifically cater to individuals aged 65 and above, the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network introduced an innovative ED avoidance service. This study assessed the acceptability of the service among its users.

METHOD

The Complex And RestorativE (CARE) Centre is a six-bed unit staffed by a multidisciplinary geriatric team. Patients are transported directly to CARE after calling for an ambulance and being triaged by a paramedic. The evaluation took place between September 2021 and September 2022. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and relatives who had accessed the service. Data analysis was performed using a six-step thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients and 15 relatives were interviewed, who described the experience of 32 attendances to the urgent CARE centre between them. Patients accessed the service for several reasons but over half were associated with falls. There was a hesitation to call emergency services for several reasons, the primary being long wait times in ED and/or the prospect of an overnight stay in hospital. Some individuals attempted to contact their General Practitioner (GP) for the presenting problem but were unable to get a timely appointment. Most participants had previously attended a local ED and had a negative experience. All individuals reported favouring the CARE centre over the traditional ED for numerous reasons including a quieter and safer environment and specially trained geriatric staff who were less rushed than ED staff. Several participants would have appreciated a standardised follow-up process after discharge.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that ED admission avoidance programmes may be an acceptable alternative treatment for older people requiring urgent care, potentially benefiting both public health systems and user experience.