Literature DB >> 34031113

Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation.

Arabella Scantlebury1, Heather Brant2, Helen Anderson3, Heather Leggett3, Chris Salisbury4, Sean Cowlishaw5, Sarah Voss2, Jonathan Richard Benger2,6, Joy Adamson3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential impacts of introducing General Practitioners into Emergency Departments (GPED) from the perspectives of service leaders, health professionals and patients. These 'expectations of impact' can be used to generate hypotheses that will inform future implementations and evaluations of GPED.
DESIGN: Qualitative study consisting of 228 semistructured interviews.
SETTING: 10 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and the wider healthcare system in England. Interviews were undertaken face to face or via telephone. Data were analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: 124 health professionals and 94 patients and carers. 10 service leaders representing a range of national organisations and government departments across England (eg, NHS England and Department of Health) were also interviewed.
RESULTS: A range of GPED models are being implemented across the NHS due to different interpretations of national policy and variation in local context. This has resulted in stakeholders and organisations interpreting the aims of GPED differently and anticipating a range of potential impacts. Participants expected GPED to affect the following areas: ED performance indicators; patient outcome and experience; service access; staffing and workforce experience; and resources. Across these 'domains of influence', arguments for positive, negative and no effect of GPED were proposed.
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating whether GPED has been successful will be challenging. However, despite uncertainty surrounding the direction of effect, there was agreement across all stakeholder groups on the areas that GPED would influence. As a result, we propose eight domains of influence that will inform our subsequent mixed-methods evaluation of GPED. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accident & emergency medicine; health policy; primary care; qualitative research

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34031113     DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  2 in total

1.  Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Arabella Scantlebury; Joy Adamson; Chris Salisbury; Heather Brant; Helen Anderson; Helen Baxter; Karen Bloor; Sean Cowlishaw; Tim Doran; James Gaughan; Andy Gibson; Nils Gutacker; Heather Leggett; Sarah Purdy; Sarah Voss; Jonathan Richard Benger
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Patients' experiences of attending emergency departments where primary care services are located: qualitative findings from patient and clinician interviews from a realist evaluation.

Authors:  Delyth Price; Michelle Edwards; Freya Davies; Alison Cooper; Joy McFadzean; Andrew Carson-Stevens; Matthew Cooke; Jeremy Dale; Bridie Angela Evans; Barbara Harrington; Julie Hepburn; Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena; Helen Snooks; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2022-01-22
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.