Primary care clinicians working in or near hospital emergency departments in the UK: A mixed methods systematic review
Howard Wilsher, S.; Brainard, J. S.; Hanson, S.; Peacock, D.; Everden, P.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence about primary care clinicians treating patients in or adjacent to hospital emergency departments in the UK. Study designMixed methods narrative systematic review. MethodsEligible studies were in English and described primary care services (general practitioners, GPs, or nurse practitioners) that treat patients within or adjacent to hospital Emergency Departments (ED). Searches were conducted on Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases. The search included extraction from an international review updated from 2020 to October 2022, and grey literature from inception to October 2022. The methods were informed by consultation with members of the public. ResultsFrom 4189 studies screened, 20 met inclusion criteria. Four studies assessed typology and streaming of services. Seven studies reported patient and public involvement. Ten studies reported differences in clinical outcomes between primary care and emergency services, but not definitive benefit for either. Likewise, results were equivocal for economic evaluations. Diverse delivery formats complicate evaluation and may explain why clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of such services. Patients were generally satisfied with the service they received, in either primary care or emergency services. ConclusionDiversity of implementation complicate conclusions that can be drawn. Existing evaluations provide little evidence that primary care services in or near emergency departments offers any system advantages for clinical outcomes, or cost savings. Process evaluation in future evaluations is essential to understand what aspects of primary care at emergency departments are likely to improve system and patient care. Implications for the profession and/or patient careThe systematic review assessed outcomes arising due to primary care clinicians providing treatment in or near Emergency Departments (ED) in the UK. There were no consistent benefits for having primary care clinicians in or near EDs. This research highlights the need for healthcare leaders and policy makers to provide more clarity in developing primary care services in or near EDs. It will have impact for leaders in healthcare to consider whether primary care clinicians in or near EDs are providing best value healthcare, or whether other models could provide patients appropriate NHS resources according to their health need. Patient and public involvementThree focus groups (with 13 public advisors) were conducted to understand patients priorities and perspectives for attending EDs with relatively minor health conditions. This helped to guide study design, data extraction and analysis of this review.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Redeployment and training of healthcare professionals to Intensive Care during COVID-19: a systemic review 95%
- Understanding good communication in ambulance pre-alerts to Emergency Department. Findings from a qualitative study of UK emergency services 94%
- Support and follow-up needs of patients discharged from Intensive Care after severe COVID-19: a mixed-methods study of the views of UK general practitioners and intensive care staff during the pandemic’s first wave 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Navigating uncertain illness trajectories for young children with serious infectious illness: a mixed-methods modified grounded theory study 93%
- Implementation strategies for telemental health: a systematic review 92%
- ‘Beyond Places of Safety’ – a qualitative study exploring the implementation of mental health crisis care innovations across England 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 93%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 92%
- An observational study of survival outcomes of people referred for ‘fast-track’ end-of-life care funding in a District General Hospital; too little too late? 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Triaging and Referring In Adjacent General and Emergency Departments (the TRIAGE trial): a cluster randomised controlled trial 94%
- Hospital at home: a systematic review of how medication management is conceptualised, described and implemented in practice – a study protocol 93%
- A mixed-methods multi-site case study of a person-centred intervention for constant observation in hospitals with people living with dementia 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patients’ and carers’ experiences of, and engagement with remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: a rapid mixed-methods study 93%
- Trauma informed co-production: Collaborating and combining expertise to improve access to primary care with women with complex needs 91%
- “I don’t know what to do or where to go”. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.