L Huibers1, E Keizer, P Giesen, R Grol, M Wensing. 1. Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. l.huibers@iq.umcn.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Triage at out-of-hours GP cooperatives (GPCs) is aimed at determining medical urgency and guiding decisions. Both medical knowledge and communication skills are required for this complex task. OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of quality of consultation and estimated urgency on the appropriateness of decisions. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of telephone triage consultations by nurses at 29 Dutch GPCs. Consultations were taped and assessed by trained observers, using a validated instrument. Measures concerned quality of consultation, nurse-estimated urgency (four levels) and appropriateness of decisions (urgency, follow-up advice and timing). Bivariate analyses and logistic multilevel regression analyses were used to explore the impact of quality of consultation (controlling for urgency) on appropriateness of decisions. RESULTS: The sample included 6739 telephone contacts, most of which (90%) were non-urgent. The majority of decisions were appropriate (91% for urgency, 96% for follow-up advice and 95% for timing). In bivariate analyses, appropriateness of decisions was positively related to higher quality of consultation. Estimated urgency was negatively associated with quality of consultation. Logistic multilevel analysis showed that higher quality of consultation was related to a more appropriate estimation of urgency [odds ratio (OR) = 1.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-1.95], follow-up advice (OR = 2.69; 95% CI: 2.41-3.01) and timing of decisions (OR = 2.41; 95% CI: 2.20-2.63). CONCLUSIONS: High quality of consultation has a positive, but small, impact on the appropriateness of decisions. Quality of consultation needs to be targeted in training and support of triage nurses, especially when it concerns highly urgent contacts.
BACKGROUND: Triage at out-of-hours GP cooperatives (GPCs) is aimed at determining medical urgency and guiding decisions. Both medical knowledge and communication skills are required for this complex task. OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of quality of consultation and estimated urgency on the appropriateness of decisions. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of telephone triage consultations by nurses at 29 Dutch GPCs. Consultations were taped and assessed by trained observers, using a validated instrument. Measures concerned quality of consultation, nurse-estimated urgency (four levels) and appropriateness of decisions (urgency, follow-up advice and timing). Bivariate analyses and logistic multilevel regression analyses were used to explore the impact of quality of consultation (controlling for urgency) on appropriateness of decisions. RESULTS: The sample included 6739 telephone contacts, most of which (90%) were non-urgent. The majority of decisions were appropriate (91% for urgency, 96% for follow-up advice and 95% for timing). In bivariate analyses, appropriateness of decisions was positively related to higher quality of consultation. Estimated urgency was negatively associated with quality of consultation. Logistic multilevel analysis showed that higher quality of consultation was related to a more appropriate estimation of urgency [odds ratio (OR) = 1.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-1.95], follow-up advice (OR = 2.69; 95% CI: 2.41-3.01) and timing of decisions (OR = 2.41; 95% CI: 2.20-2.63). CONCLUSIONS: High quality of consultation has a positive, but small, impact on the appropriateness of decisions. Quality of consultation needs to be targeted in training and support of triage nurses, especially when it concerns highly urgent contacts.
Authors: Nancy Wijers; Lisette Schoonhoven; Paul Giesen; Hubertus Vrijhoef; Regi van der Burgt; Joke Mintjes; Michel Wensing; Miranda Laurant Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Djalma S Guimarães; Eduardo J O Soares; Gileno Ferraz Júnior; Denise D Medeiros Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anna Varley; Fiona C Warren; Suzanne H Richards; Raff Calitri; Katherine Chaplin; Emily Fletcher; Tim A Holt; Valerie Lattimer; Jamie Murdoch; David A Richards; John Campbell Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Lisa K O'Brien; Patricia Drobnick; Mary Gehman; Christopher Hollenbeak; Mark R Iantosca; Sherri Luchs; Maureen Manning; Susan K Palm; John Potochny; Angela Ritzman; Jennie Tetro-Viozzi; Mary Trauger; April D Armstrong Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2017-06-05
Authors: D S Graversen; M B Christensen; A F Pedersen; A H Carlsen; F Bro; H C Christensen; C H Vestergaard; L Huibers Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Frederick North; Debra D Richards; Kimberly A Bremseth; Mary R Lee; Debra L Cox; Prathibha Varkey; Robert J Stroebel Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 2.796