RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In most countries, different health care providers are involved in emergency care. In the Netherlands, out-of-hours care is provided by general practitioner cooperatives (GPCs) and emergency departments (EDs). Our aim was to describe the flow of patients attending emergency care in these settings. METHOD: A retrospective record review was performed, concerning patients who had visited a GPC or ED. Recorded information included urgency, diagnostic tests, and follow-up contacts. Descriptive figures were determined for patient flows in GPC and ED for urgent contacts and non-urgent contacts. RESULTS: We included 319 GPC contacts and 356 ED contacts, of which 78% were non-urgent. The majority of GPC contacts were completed at the GPC without follow-up; 37% of non-urgent patients had a follow-up contact, usually with primary care. Only 5% of non-urgent GPC patients received diagnostic tests compared to 63% of non-urgent ED patients (mostly X-rays). The majority of non-urgent ED patients (88%) had a follow-up contact, usually at an outpatient clinic (67%). Most non-urgent ED patients (83%) who received a diagnostic test also had an outpatient clinic follow-up contact. Of urgent ED patients, the majority had a follow-up contact (85%), mostly with an outpatient clinic (74%). CONCLUSION: Although most out-of-hours care patients present non-urgent health problems, at the ED they are more likely to receive diagnostic tests and follow-up contacts. This may reflect differences in patient populations between the ED and GPC or suggest opportunities for improving efficiency of planning follow-up contacts.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In most countries, different health care providers are involved in emergency care. In the Netherlands, out-of-hours care is provided by general practitioner cooperatives (GPCs) and emergency departments (EDs). Our aim was to describe the flow of patients attending emergency care in these settings. METHOD: A retrospective record review was performed, concerning patients who had visited a GPC or ED. Recorded information included urgency, diagnostic tests, and follow-up contacts. Descriptive figures were determined for patient flows in GPC and ED for urgent contacts and non-urgent contacts. RESULTS: We included 319 GPC contacts and 356 ED contacts, of which 78% were non-urgent. The majority of GPC contacts were completed at the GPC without follow-up; 37% of non-urgent patients had a follow-up contact, usually with primary care. Only 5% of non-urgent GPCpatients received diagnostic tests compared to 63% of non-urgent ED patients (mostly X-rays). The majority of non-urgent ED patients (88%) had a follow-up contact, usually at an outpatient clinic (67%). Most non-urgent ED patients (83%) who received a diagnostic test also had an outpatient clinic follow-up contact. Of urgent ED patients, the majority had a follow-up contact (85%), mostly with an outpatient clinic (74%). CONCLUSION: Although most out-of-hours care patients present non-urgent health problems, at the ED they are more likely to receive diagnostic tests and follow-up contacts. This may reflect differences in patient populations between the ED and GPC or suggest opportunities for improving efficiency of planning follow-up contacts.
Authors: Wendy A M H Thijssen; Elske van Mierlo; Elske van Miero; Maartje Willekens; Jasper Rebel; Maro H Sandel; Paul Giesen; Michel Wensing Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ken J Farion; Megan Wright; Roger Zemek; Gina Neto; Anna Karwowska; Sandra Tse; Sarah Reid; Mona Jabbour; Stephanie Poirier; Katherine A Moreau; Nicholas Barrowman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anneke Bloemhoff; Lisette Schoonhoven; Arjan J L de Kreek; Pierre M van Grunsven; Miranda G H Laurant; Sivera A A Berben Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Wendy A M H Thijssen; Nicole Kraaijvanger; Dennis G Barten; Marleen L M Boerma; Paul Giesen; Michel Wensing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Elisabeth Sybilla Johanna van Gils-van Rooij; Sjoerd Michael Broekman; Dingenus Herman de Bakker; Berthold Rudy Meijboom; Christoffel Joris Yzermans Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-02-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Katherine Morton; Sarah Voss; Joy Adamson; Helen Baxter; Karen Bloor; Janet Brandling; Sean Cowlishaw; Tim Doran; Andrew Gibson; Nils Gutacker; Dan Liu; Sarah Purdy; Paul Roy; Christopher Salisbury; Arabella Scantlebury; Anu Vaittinen; Rose Watson; Jonathan Richard Benger Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692