BACKGROUND: In 2013 a General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC) was introduced at the Emergency Department (ED) of our hospital. One of the aims of this co-located GPC was to improve throughput of the remaining patients at the ED. To determine the change in patient flow, we assessed the number of self-referrals, redirection of self-referrals to the GPC and back to the ED, as well as ward and ICU admission rates and length of stay of the remaining ED population. METHODS: We conducted a four months' pre-post comparison before and after the implementation of a co-located GPC with an urban ED in the Netherlands. RESULTS: More than half of our ED patients were self-referrals. At triage, 54.5% of these self-referrals were redirected to the GPC. After assessment at the GPC, 8.5% of them were referred back to the ED. The number of patients treated at the ED declined with 20.3% after the introduction of the GPC. In the remaining ED population, there was a significant increase of highly urgent patients (P<0.001), regular admissions (P<0.001), and ICU admissions (P<0.001). Despite the decline of the number of patients at the ED, the total length of stay of patients treated at the ED increased from 14 682 hours in the two months' control period to 14 962 hours in the two months' intervention period, a total increase of 270 hours in two months (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Introduction of a GPC led to efficient redirection of self-referrals but failed to improve throughput of the remaining patients at the ED.
BACKGROUND: In 2013 a General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC) was introduced at the Emergency Department (ED) of our hospital. One of the aims of this co-located GPC was to improve throughput of the remaining patients at the ED. To determine the change in patient flow, we assessed the number of self-referrals, redirection of self-referrals to the GPC and back to the ED, as well as ward and ICU admission rates and length of stay of the remaining ED population. METHODS: We conducted a four months' pre-post comparison before and after the implementation of a co-located GPC with an urban ED in the Netherlands. RESULTS: More than half of our ED patients were self-referrals. At triage, 54.5% of these self-referrals were redirected to the GPC. After assessment at the GPC, 8.5% of them were referred back to the ED. The number of patients treated at the ED declined with 20.3% after the introduction of the GPC. In the remaining ED population, there was a significant increase of highly urgent patients (P<0.001), regular admissions (P<0.001), and ICU admissions (P<0.001). Despite the decline of the number of patients at the ED, the total length of stay of patients treated at the ED increased from 14 682 hours in the two months' control period to 14 962 hours in the two months' intervention period, a total increase of 270 hours in two months (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Introduction of a GPC led to efficient redirection of self-referrals but failed to improve throughput of the remaining patients at the ED.
Entities:
Keywords:
Crowding; Emergency Service; General practitioners; Length of stay; hospital
Authors: Brent R Asplin; David J Magid; Karin V Rhodes; Leif I Solberg; Nicole Lurie; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jesse M Pines; Joshua A Hilton; Ellen J Weber; Annechien J Alkemade; Hasan Al Shabanah; Philip D Anderson; Michael Bernhard; Alessio Bertini; André Gries; Santiago Ferrandiz; Vijaya Arun Kumar; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Barbara Hogan; Bo Madsen; Suzanne Mason; Gunnar Ohlén; Timothy Rainer; Niels Rathlev; Eric Revue; Drew Richardson; Mehdi Sattarian; Michael J Schull Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: John C Moskop; David P Sklar; Joel M Geiderman; Raquel M Schears; Kelly J Bookman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Lieke M van der Straten; Henk F van Stel; Frans J M Spee; Marleen E Vreeburg; Augustinus J P Schrijvers; Leontien M Sturms Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Corinne Chmiel; Mathyas Wang; Patrick Sidler; Klaus Eichler; Thomas Rosemann; Oliver Senn Journal: Swiss Med Wkly Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Elisabeth Sybilla Johanna van Gils-van Rooij; Christoffel Joris Yzermans; Sjoerd Michael Broekman; Berthold Rudy Meijboom; Gerben Paul Welling; Dingenus Herman de Bakker Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: M Christien van der Linden; Robert Lindeboom; Naomi van der Linden; Crispijn L van den Brand; Rianne C Lam; Cees Lucas; Rob de Haan; J Carel Goslings Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2014-07-16
Authors: Stefan Morreel; Veronique Verhoeven; Hilde Philips; Jasmine Meysman; Ines Homburg; Diana De Graeve; K G Monsieurs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.006
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: Birgitte Schoenmakers; Jasper Van Criekinge; Timon Boeve; Jonas Wilms; Chris Van Der Mullen; Marc Sabbe Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Stefan Morreel; Hilde Philips; Diana De Graeve; Koenraad G Monsieurs; Jarl K Kampen; Jasmine Meysman; Eva Lefevre; Veronique Verhoeven Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hensley H Mariathas; Oliver Hurley; Nahid Rahimipour Anaraki; Christina Young; Christopher Patey; Paul Norman; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Peizhong Peter Wang; Veeresh Gadag; Hai V Nguyen; Holly Etchegary; Farah McCrate; John C Knight; Shabnam Asghari Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-03-24