Alicia O'Cathain1, Emma Knowles2, Janette Turner3, Enid Hirst4, Steve Goodacre5, Jon Nicholl6. 1. Professor of Health Services Research, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK a.ocathain@sheffield.ac.uk. 2. Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK. 3. Senior Research Fellow, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK. 4. Chair of Sheffield Emergency Care Forum, Sheffield, UK. 5. Professor of Emergency Medicine, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK. 6. Professor of Health Services Research, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors affecting variation in avoidable emergency admissions that are not usually identified in statistical regression. METHODS: As part of an ethnographic residual analysis, we compared six emergency and urgent care systems in England, interviewing 82 commissioners and providers of key emergency and urgent care services. RESULTS: There was variation between the six cases in how interviewees described three parts of their emergency and urgent care systems. First, interviewees' descriptions revealed variation in the availability of services before patients decided to attend emergency departments. Poor availability of general practice out of hours services in some of the cases reportedly made attendance at emergency departments the easier option for patients. Second, there was variation in how interviewees described patients being dealt with during their emergency department visit in terms of availability of senior review by specialists and in coding practices when patients were at risk of breaching the NHS's 4-hour waiting time target. Third, there was variability in services described as facilitating discharge home from emergency departments. In some cases, emergency department staff described dealing with multiple agencies in multiple localities outside the hospital, making admission the easier option. In other cases, proactive multidisciplinary rapid assessment teams were described as available to avoid admissions. Perceptions of resources available out of hours and the extent of integration between different health services, and between health and social services, also differed by case. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative case study approach identified further factors that may affect avoidable emergency admissions. Initiatives to improve GP out of hours services, make coding more accurately reflect patient experience, increase senior review in emergency departments, offer proactive multidisciplinary admission avoidance teams, improve the availability of out of hours care in the wider emergency and urgent care system, and increase service integration may reduce avoidable admissions. Evaluation of such initiatives would be necessary before wide-scale adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors affecting variation in avoidable emergency admissions that are not usually identified in statistical regression. METHODS: As part of an ethnographic residual analysis, we compared six emergency and urgent care systems in England, interviewing 82 commissioners and providers of key emergency and urgent care services. RESULTS: There was variation between the six cases in how interviewees described three parts of their emergency and urgent care systems. First, interviewees' descriptions revealed variation in the availability of services before patients decided to attend emergency departments. Poor availability of general practice out of hours services in some of the cases reportedly made attendance at emergency departments the easier option for patients. Second, there was variation in how interviewees described patients being dealt with during their emergency department visit in terms of availability of senior review by specialists and in coding practices when patients were at risk of breaching the NHS's 4-hour waiting time target. Third, there was variability in services described as facilitating discharge home from emergency departments. In some cases, emergency department staff described dealing with multiple agencies in multiple localities outside the hospital, making admission the easier option. In other cases, proactive multidisciplinary rapid assessment teams were described as available to avoid admissions. Perceptions of resources available out of hours and the extent of integration between different health services, and between health and social services, also differed by case. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative case study approach identified further factors that may affect avoidable emergency admissions. Initiatives to improve GP out of hours services, make coding more accurately reflect patient experience, increase senior review in emergency departments, offer proactive multidisciplinary admission avoidance teams, improve the availability of out of hours care in the wider emergency and urgent care system, and increase service integration may reduce avoidable admissions. Evaluation of such initiatives would be necessary before wide-scale adoption.
Authors: Andreas Sandø; Martin Schultz; Jesper Eugen-Olsen; Lars Simon Rasmussen; Lars Køber; Erik Kjøller; Birgitte Nybo Jensen; Lisbet Ravn; Theis Lange; Kasper Iversen Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Alison Cooper; Freya Davies; Michelle Edwards; Pippa Anderson; Andrew Carson-Stevens; Matthew W Cooke; Liam Donaldson; Jeremy Dale; Bridie Angela Evans; Peter D Hibbert; Thomas C Hughes; Alison Porter; Tim Rainer; Aloysius Siriwardena; Helen Snooks; Adrian Edwards Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrew Wilson; Richard Baker; John Bankart; Jay Banerjee; Ran Bhamra; Simon Conroy; Stoyan Kurtev; Kay Phelps; Emma Regen; Stephen Rogers; Justin Waring Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692