A Realist Case Study of a Regional Hospital's Response to Improve Emergency Department Access in the Context of Australian Health Care Reforms

Methods in realist evaluation: A mapping review

Realist evaluation is becoming increasingly popular as an evaluation methodology. Its main objective is to uncover the mechanisms that lead to observed outcomes following an intervention and the contextual conditions that enabled this. The focus is on explaining why, for whom and in what circumstances an intervention works. It is a theory-driven approach and is explicitly method neutral, meaning that both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods can be used to unearth the underlying mechanisms that cause the intervention outcomes. In this review, we aim to map the methods used in realist evaluation studies, to draw lessons from the findings and to reflect on ways forward. We found that qualitative methods and interviews specifically are most commonly used in realist evaluations; that theory is often absent behind the methods and sampling techniques used; and that more innovative methods remain underexplored. We conclude the review by proposing four ways forward: (1) developing realist surveys, (2) exploring the relevance of innovative methods, (3) increasing the attention paid to sampling procedures and (4) strengthening the theory-driven nature of method. We believe that these four action points can strengthen the practice of realist evaluation and its outcomes.

Interventions to manage use of the emergency and urgent care system by people from vulnerable groups: a mapping review

Background

The NHS currently faces increasing demands on accident and emergency departments. Concern has been expressed regarding whether the needs of vulnerable groups are being handled appropriately or whether alternative methods of service delivery may provide more appropriate emergency and urgent care services for particular groups.

Objective

Our objective was to identify what interventions exist to manage use of the emergency and urgent care system by people from a prespecified list of vulnerable groups. We aimed to describe the characteristics of these interventions and examine service delivery outcomes (for patients and the health service) resulting from these interventions.

Review methods

We conducted an initial mapping review to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence relating to seven vulnerable groups (socioeconomically deprived people and families, migrants, ethnic minority groups, the long-term unemployed/inactive, people with unstable housing situations, people living in rural/isolated areas and people with substance abuse disorders). Databases, including MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and other sources were searched between 2008 and 2018. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. In addition, we searched for UK interventions and initiatives by examining press reports, commissioning plans and casebooks of ‘good practice’. We carried out a detailed intervention analysis, using an adapted version of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) framework for describing interventions, and an analysis of current NHS practice initiatives.

Results

We identified nine different types of interventions: care navigators [three studies – moderate GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations)], care planning (three studies – high), case finding (five studies – moderate), case management (four studies – high), front of accident and emergency general practice/front-door streaming model (one study – low), migrant support programme (one study – low), outreach services and teams (two studies – moderate), rapid access doctor/paramedic/urgent visiting services (one study – low) and urgent care clinics (one systematic review – moderate). Few interventions had been targeted at vulnerable populations; instead, they represented general population interventions or were targeted at frequent attenders (who may or may not be from vulnerable groups). Interventions supported by robust evidence (care navigators, care planning, case finding, case management, outreach services and teams, and urgent care clinics) demonstrated an effect on the general population, rather than specific population effects. Many programmes mixed intervention components (e.g. case finding, case management and care navigators), making it difficult to isolate the effect of any single component. Promising UK initiatives (front of accident and emergency general practice/front-door streaming model, migrant support programmes and rapid access doctor/paramedic/urgent visiting services) lacked rigorous evaluation. Evaluation should therefore focus on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these initiatives.

Conclusions

The review identified a limited number of intervention types that may be useful in addressing the needs of specific vulnerable populations, with little evidence specifically relating to these groups. The evidence highlights that vulnerable populations encompass different subgroups with potentially differing needs, and also that interventions seem particularly context sensitive. This indicates a need for a greater understanding of potential drivers for varying groups in specific localities.

Limitations

Resources did not allow exhaustive identification of all UK initiatives; the examples cited are indicative.

Future work

Research is required to examine how specific vulnerable populations differentially benefit from specific types of alternative service provision. Further exploration, using primary mixed-methods data and potentially realist evaluation, is required to explore what works for whom under what circumstances. Rigorous evaluation of UK initiatives is required, including a specific need for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider emergency and urgent care system.

Funding

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

The impact of Australian healthcare reforms on emergency department time-based process outcomes: An interrupted time series study

Background

In 2011, the Australian government introduced national healthcare reforms aimed at increasing the timeliness and quality of hospital care. The healthcare reforms included, but were not limited to, emergency department (ED) time-based targets, financial incentives, and public performance reporting of hospital data. We sought to evaluate the impact of the national healthcare reforms on ED time-based process outcomes.

Methods

A quasi-experimental study of ED presentations from 2006 to 2016 in the state of Victoria, Australia. Uncontrolled, interrupted time-series analyses were used to evaluate, by hospital peer groups, the effect of national healthcare reforms on: patient wait times for treatment; treatment within recommended time; and patient departure within four hours of arrival in ED.

Results

There were small improvements in ED time-based process outcomes following the introduction of the national healthcare reforms. These occurred in most hospital peer groups immediately and over the longer term, across the various triage categories. The largest improvements occurred in small hospitals and smallest improvements in medium sized hospitals. ED time-based targets, now abolished by the Australian government, were not achieved in any hospital peer groups.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that national healthcare reforms had the potential to prompt fundamental changes in ED processes leading to significant improvements in ED performances across most hospital peer groups but were generally unable to reach the ED targets imposed nationally. ED performances also varied by hospital peer groups. Attention to ED time-based process outcomes within hospital peer groups may provide insights into hospital practices that could improve the quality and efficiency of ED care.