4.6 Article

Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 12, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063495

Keywords

health policy; accident & emergency medicine; qualitative research; primary care

Funding

  1. Department of Health. National Institute for Health Research. Health Services and Delivery Research Programme [15/145/06]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study examined the effect of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience. The results showed variability in the impact of GPED and disagreement regarding its purpose and potential impact. Despite potential influences on certain factors, there was no overall evidence that GPED improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience.
Objectives To examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce. Design Mixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. Setting and participants Data were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available. Results There was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring). Conclusions We found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available