BACKGROUND: Inappropriate attendances may account for up to 40% of presentations at accident and emergency (A&E) departments. There is considerable interest from health practitioners and policymakers in interventions to reduce this burden. AIM: To review the evidence on primary care service interventions to reduce inappropriate A&E attendances. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of UK and international primary care interventions. METHOD: Studies published in English between 1 January 1986 and 23 August 2011 were identified from PubMed, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Collaboration, and Health Technology Assessment databases. The outcome measures were A&E attendances, patient satisfaction, clinical outcome, and intervention cost. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts of retrieved results, with adjudication of disagreements conducted by the third. Studies were quality assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist system where applicable. RESULTS: In total, 9916 manuscripts were identified, of which 34 were reviewed. Telephone triage was the single best-evaluated intervention. This resulted in negligible impact on A&E attendance, but exhibited acceptable patient satisfaction and clinical safety; cost effectiveness was uncertain. The limited available evidence suggests that emergency nurse practitioners in community settings and community health centres may reduce A&E attendance. For all other interventions considered in this review (walk-in centres, minor injuries units, and out-of-hours general practice), the effects on A&E attendance, patient outcomes, and cost were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Studies showed a negligible effect on A&E attendance for all interventions; data on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness are limited. There is an urgent need to examine all aspects of primary care service interventions that aim to reduce inappropriate A&E attendance.
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate attendances may account for up to 40% of presentations at accident and emergency (A&E) departments. There is considerable interest from health practitioners and policymakers in interventions to reduce this burden. AIM: To review the evidence on primary care service interventions to reduce inappropriate A&E attendances. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of UK and international primary care interventions. METHOD: Studies published in English between 1 January 1986 and 23 August 2011 were identified from PubMed, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Collaboration, and Health Technology Assessment databases. The outcome measures were A&E attendances, patient satisfaction, clinical outcome, and intervention cost. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts of retrieved results, with adjudication of disagreements conducted by the third. Studies were quality assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist system where applicable. RESULTS: In total, 9916 manuscripts were identified, of which 34 were reviewed. Telephone triage was the single best-evaluated intervention. This resulted in negligible impact on A&E attendance, but exhibited acceptable patient satisfaction and clinical safety; cost effectiveness was uncertain. The limited available evidence suggests that emergency nurse practitioners in community settings and community health centres may reduce A&E attendance. For all other interventions considered in this review (walk-in centres, minor injuries units, and out-of-hours general practice), the effects on A&E attendance, patient outcomes, and cost were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Studies showed a negligible effect on A&E attendance for all interventions; data on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness are limited. There is an urgent need to examine all aspects of primary care service interventions that aim to reduce inappropriate A&E attendance.
Authors: Caro J T van Uden; Ron A G Winkens; Geertjan Wesseling; Hans F B M Fiolet; Onno C P van Schayck; Harry F J M Crebolder Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Chris Salisbury; Sandra Hollinghurst; Alan Montgomery; Matthew Cooke; James Munro; Deborah Sharp; Melanie Chalder Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Caro J T van Uden; Andre J H A Ament; Gemma B W E Voss; Geertjan Wesseling; Ron A G Winkens; Onno C P van Schayck; Harry F J M Crebolder Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2006-05-04 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Sonja Marjanovic; Bryn Garrod; Talitha Dubow; Emma Pitchforth; Catherine A Lichten; Julian Elston; Emma Harte; Jon Sussex; Miaoqing Yang; Fahd Malik; Richard Lewis; Tom Ling Journal: Rand Health Q Date: 2018-03-30
Authors: Aaron Jones; Susan E Bronskill; Connie Schumacher; Hsien Seow; David Feeny; Andrew P Costa Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Joel C Boggan; John Paul Shoup; John D Whited; Elizabeth Van Voorhees; Adelaide M Gordon; Sharron Rushton; Allison A Lewinski; Amir A Tabriz; Soheir Adam; Jessica Fulton; Andrzej S Kosinski; Megan G Van Noord; John W Williams; Karen M Goldstein; Jennifer M Gierisch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jesse Cambon; Tristan Cordier; Elizabeth L Munnich; Andrew Renda; Bobby Kapur; Shkelzen Hoxhaj; Meredith Williams Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2018-04
Authors: Lorcan Clarke; Michael Anderson; Rob Anderson; Morten Bonde Klausen; Rebecca Forman; Jenna Kerns; Adrian Rabe; Søren Rud Kristensen; Pavlos Theodorakis; Jose Valderas; Hans Kluge; Elias Mossialos Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 4.911