Non-compliance with a nurse's advice to visit the primary care provider: an exploratory secondary analysis of the TRIAGE-trial

Differences in emergency nurse triage between a simulated setting and the real world, post hoc analysis of a cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

In the TRIAGE trial, a cluster randomised trial about diverting emergency department (ED) patients to a general practice cooperative (GPC) using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System, the difference in the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC was striking: 13.3% in the intervention group (patients were encouraged to comply to an ED or GPC assignment, real-world setting) and 24.7% in the control group (the assignment was not communicated, all remained at the ED, simulated setting). In this secondary analysis, we assess the differences in the use of the triage tool between intervention and control group and differences in costs and hospitalisations for patients assigned to the GPC.

SETTING

ED of a general hospital and the adjacent GPC.

PARTICIPANTS

8038 patients (6294 intervention and 1744 control).Primary and secondary outcome measures proportion of patients with triage parameters (reason for encounter, discriminator and urgency category) leading to an assignment to the ED, proportion of patients for which the computer-generated GPC assignment was overruled, motivations for choosing certain parameters, costs (invoices) and hospitalisations.

RESULTS

An additional 3.1% (p<0.01) of the patients in the intervention group were classified as urgent. Discriminators leading to the ED were registered for an additional 16.2% (p<0.01), mainly because of a perceived need for imaging. Nurses equally chose flow charts leading to the ED (p=0.41) and equally overruled the protocol (p=0.91). In the intervention group, the mean cost for patients assigned to the GPC was €23 (p<0.01) lower and less patients with an assignment to the GPC were hospitalised (1.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Nurses used a triage tool more risk averse when it was used to divert patients to primary care as compared with a theoretical assignment to primary care. Outcomes from a simulated setting should not be extrapolated to real patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03793972.

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE-trial): A process evaluation of medical staff experiences in a nurse-led triage system

AIMS

This process evaluation aims at identifying the facilitators and inhibitors that influenced the successful uptake of a nurse-led triage system streaming low-risk patients from an emergency department (ED) to the general practitioner (GP).

DESIGN & METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with ED nurses (n = 12), ED doctors (n = 6) from the ED of a Belgian general hospital and GPs (n = 5) affiliated with the adjacent GP cooperative (GPC). The process evaluation ran in parallel with the TRIAGE trial that started in March 2019 and ended 31st of December 2019. The first set of interviews was conducted in June 2019 and the second set in January 2020. Data were analysed based on grounded theory.

RESULTS

Through a deductive framework, facilitators and inhibitors could be identified on three levels: the organisational, group and individual level. Main inhibitors are the degree of risk aversion of individual nurses, possible language barriers during delivery of the triage advice and the non-adapted ED infrastructure. Training on both the use of the triage protocol and effective delivery of the triage advice, in combination with periodical feedback from the GPC were the most important facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Based on the process evaluation we can conclude that a consensus exists among stakeholders that the ED Nurses are considered ideally positioned to perform the triage of walk-in patients, although a certain degree of experience is necessary. Although the extended triage protocol and GPC referral increases the complexity and duration of triage and entails a higher workload for the triage nurses, ED nurses found it did lead to a lower (perceived) workload for the ED in general.