How do emergency departments respond to ambulance pre-alert calls? A qualitative exploration of the management of pre-alerts in UK emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Calls to emergency departments (EDs) from ambulances to alert them to a critical case being transported to that facility that requires a special response ('pre-alerts') have been shown to improve outcomes for patients requiring immediate time-critical treatment (eg, stroke). However, little is known about their usefulness for other patients and the processes involved in ED responses to them. This study aimed to understand how pre-alerts influence patient care in the ED. METHODS: We undertook non-participant observation (162 hours, 143 pre-alerts) and semi-structured interviews with staff (n=40) in six UK EDs between August 2022 and April 2023 focusing on how ED staff respond to pre-alert calls and what influences their response. Observation notes and interview transcripts were imported into NVivo and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Pre-alert calls involved significant time and resources for ED staff but they were valued as they enabled staff to prepare for a patient's arrival (practically and psychologically). High demand and handover delays at ED created additional pre-alerts due to ambulance clinician concerns about the impact of long waits on patients.Despite the risk of pre-alert fatigue from calls for patients considered not to require a special response, ED clinicians appreciated timely pre-alert information, perceiving a higher risk from underalerting than overalerting. Variation in ED response was influenced by individual and organisational factors, particularly the resources available at the time of pre-alert. Unclear ED processes for receiving, documenting and sharing information about pre-alerts increased the risk of information loss. CONCLUSION: Improving processes for receiving and sharing pre-alert information may help ED clinicians prepare appropriately for incoming patients. Alternative routes for ambulance clinicians to seek advice on borderline pre-alert patients may help to improve the appropriateness of pre-alerts.

What influences ambulance clinician decisions to pre-alert emergency departments: a qualitative exploration of pre-alert practice in UK ambulance services and emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance clinicians use pre-alerts to inform receiving hospitals of the imminent arrival of a time-critical patient considered to require immediate attention, enabling the receiving emergency department (ED) or other clinical area to prepare. Pre-alerts are key to ensuring immediate access to appropriate care, but unnecessary pre-alerts can divert resources from other patients and fuel 'pre-alert fatigue' among ED staff. This research aims to provide a better understanding of pre-alert decision-making practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 ambulance clinicians from three ambulance services and 40 ED staff from six receiving EDs. Observation (162 hours) of responses to pre-alerts (n=143, call-to-handover) was also conducted in the six EDs. Interview transcripts and observation notes were imported into NVIVO and analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Pre-alert decisions involve rapid assessment of clinical risk based on physiological observations, clinical judgement and perceived risk of deterioration, with reference to pre-alert guidance. Clinical experience (pattern recognition and intuition) and confidence helped ambulance clinicians to understand which patients required immediate ED care on arrival or were at highest risk of deterioration. Ambulance clinicians primarily learnt to pre-alert 'on the job' and via informal feedback mechanisms, including the ED response to previous pre-alerts. Availability and access to clinical decision support was variable, and clinicians balanced the use of guidance and protocols with concerns about retention of clinical judgement and autonomy. Differences in pre-alert criteria between ambulance services and EDs created difficulties in deciding whether to pre-alert and was particularly challenging for less experienced clinicians. CONCLUSION: We identified potentially avoidable variation in decision-making, which has implications for patient care and emergency care resources, and can create tension between the services. Consistency in practice may be improved by greater standardisation of guidance and protocols, training and access to performance feedback and cross-service collaboration to minimise potential sources of tension.

How could online NHS 111 reduce demand for the telephone NHS 111 service? Qualitative study of user and staff views.

BACKGROUND: Online NHS111 was introduced in 2018 in response to increasing and unsustainable demand for telephone NHS111. Despite high levels of use, there is little evidence of channel shift from the telephone to the online service. We explored user and staff perspectives of online NHS111 to understand how and why online NHS111 is used and whether there may be potential for shift from the telephone to online service. METHODS: As part of a wider mixed-methods study, we used qualitative semistructured interviews to explore perspectives of recent users of online 111 who had responded to a user survey (n=32) and NHS 111 staff (n=16) between November 2019 and June 2020. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data sets were analysed separately using framework analysis (user interviews) and thematic analysis (staff interviews). RESULTS: Telephone NHS111 health adviser skills in probing and obtaining 'soft information' were perceived as key to obtaining advice that was considered more appropriate and trusted than advice from online interactions, which relied on oversimplified or irrelevant questions.Online NHS111 was perceived to provide a useful and convenient adjunct to the telephone service and widened access to NHS111 services for some subgroups of users who would not otherwise access the telephone service (eg, communication barriers, social anxiety) or were concerned about 'bothering' a health professional. The nature of the online consultation meant that online NHS111 was perceived as more disposable and used more speculatively. CONCLUSION: Online 111 was perceived as a useful adjunct but not a replacement for telephone NHS 111 with potential for channel shift hindered by reduced confidence in the online service due to the lack of human interaction. Further development of OL111 algorithms will be required if it is to meet the needs of people with more complex health needs.

Determining the relative salience of recognised push variables on health professional decisions to leave the UK National Health Service (NHS) using the method of paired comparisons.

OBJECTIVE: The primary and secondary impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic are claimed to have had a detrimental impact on health professional retention within the UK National Health Service (NHS). This study set out to identify priorities for intervention by scaling the relative importance of widely cited push (leave) influences. DESIGN: During Summer/Autumn 2021, a UK-wide opportunity sample (n=1958) of NHS health professionals completed an online paired-comparisons exercise to determine the relative salience of work-related stress, workload intensity, time pressure, staffing levels, working hours, work-homelife balance, recognition of effort and pay as reasons why health professionals leave NHS employment. SETTING: The study is believed to be the first large-scale systematic assessment of factors driving staff exits from the NHS since the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: All professions gave primacy to work-related stress, workload intensity and staffing levels. Pay was typically located around the midpoint of the respective scales; recognition of effort and working hours were ranked lowest. However, differences were apparent in the rank order and relative weighting of push variables between health professions and care delivery functions. Ambulance paramedics present as an outlier, notably with respect to staffing level (F-stat 4.47, p=0.004) and the primacy of work-homelife balance. Relative to staffing level, other push variables exert a stronger influence on paramedics than nurses or doctors (f 4.29, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Findings are relevant to future NHS health professional retention intervention strategy. Excepting paramedics/ambulance services, rankings of leave variables across the different health professional families and organisation types exhibit strong alignment at the ordinal level. However, demographic differences in the weightings and rankings, ascribed to push factors by professional family and organisation type, suggests that, in addition to signposting universal (all-staff) priorities for intervention, bespoke solutions for different professions and functions may be needed.

Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow testing and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well-received ideas have low uptake.

Introduction: In January 2021, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the emergency department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot among paramedics, we undertook a process evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot. Methods: We undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis. Results: Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being 'research-keen') and negatively influenced by 'COVID-19 exhaustion', electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to 'poor timing' of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria. Participants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves, and supported future roll-out. Conclusions: Ambulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.

Qualitative exploration of the Medical Examiner role in identifying problems with the quality of patient care.

OBJECTIVE: A national system of Medical Examiners (MEs) implemented in England and Wales from April 2019 was intended to ensure that every death receives scrutiny from an independent, senior doctor, resulting in early detection of problems in care. The aim of this study was to increase understanding of how the ME role operates to identify problems related to quality of patient care and to explore the potential for development to maximise learning opportunities. DESIGN: A qualitative approach involved the use of semi-structured interviews. Data analysis employed a framework approach. SETTING: Study participants were recruited from 11 acute hospitals in England, known to be operating an ME service. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 20 MEs and one ME officer. RESULTS: MEs brought different perspectives to the role based on their medical background. The process for identifying and acting on quality of care concerns was broadly consistent, with a notable consensus regarding the value of speaking to bereaved relatives. Variation was identified within and between services in relation to how core components are carried out and the perceived salience of information, which appeared to reflect individual and service preferences as well as different organisational pathways. ME services required flexibility to accommodate fluctuating demand, but funding arrangements imposed restrictions. The majority of MEs highlighted limited opportunity for formal team contact and a lack of meaningful feedback as limiting scope for development. CONCLUSION: Core components of the ME role were being conducted, although individual and systemic variations in practice were identified. The discussion with bereaved relatives is a unique feature of the ME role and was considered highly valuable, both for the organisation and relatives. Further development could consider the impact of the variation identified and address mechanisms for feedback and shared learning.

'Clinically unnecessary' use of emergency and urgent care: A realist review of patients' decision making.

BACKGROUND: Demand is labelled 'clinically unnecessary' when patients do not need the levels of clinical care or urgency provided by the service they contact. OBJECTIVE: To identify programme theories which seek to explain why patients make use of emergency and urgent care that is subsequently judged as clinically unnecessary. DESIGN: Realist review. METHODS: Papers from four recent systematic reviews of demand for emergency and urgent care, and an updated search to January 2017. Programme theories developed using Context-Mechanism-Outcome chains identified from 32 qualitative studies and tested by exploring their relationship with existing health behaviour theories and 29 quantitative studies. RESULTS: Six mechanisms, based on ten interrelated programme theories, explained why patients made clinically unnecessary use of emergency and urgent care: (a) need for risk minimization, for example heightened anxiety due to previous experiences of traumatic events; (b) need for speed, for example caused by need to function normally to attend to responsibilities; (c) need for low treatment-seeking burden, caused by inability to cope due to complex or stressful lives; (d) compliance, because family or health services had advised such action; (e) consumer satisfaction, because emergency departments were perceived to offer the desired tests and expertise when contrasted with primary care; and (f) frustration, where patients had attempted and failed to obtain a general practitioner appointment in the desired timeframe. Multiple mechanisms could operate for an individual. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than only focusing on individuals' behaviour, interventions could include changes to health service configuration and accessibility, and societal changes to increase coping ability.

Using vignettes to assess the accuracy and rationale of paramedic decisions on conveyance to the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Paramedics make important decisions about whether a patient needs transport to hospital, or can be discharged on scene. These decisions require a degree of accuracy, as taking low acuity patients to the emergency department (ED) can support ambulance ramping. In contrast, leaving mid-high acuity patients on scene can lead to incidents and recontact. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of conveyance decisions made by paramedics when looking at real life patient scenarios with known outcomes. It also aims to explore how the paramedic made the decision. METHODS: We undertook a prospective mixed method triangulation design. Six individual patient vignettes were created using linked ambulance and ED data. These were then presented in an online survey to paramedics in Yorkshire. Half the vignettes related to mid-high acuity attendances at the ED and the other half were low acuity. Vignettes were validated by a small expert panel. Participants were asked to determine the appropriate conveyance decision and to explain the rationale behind their decisions using a free-text box. RESULTS: A total of 143 paramedics undertook the survey and 858 vignettes were completed. There was clear agreement between paramedics for transport decisions (ƙ = 0.63). Overall accuracy was 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.73). Paramedics were better at 'ruling in' the ED, with sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92). The specificity of 'ruling out' the ED was 0.51 (95% CI 0.46-0.56). Text comments were focused on patient safety and risk aversion. DISCUSSION: Paramedics make accurate conveyance decisions but are more likely to over-convey than under-convey, meaning that while decisions are safe they are not always appropriate. It is important that paramedics feel supported by the service to make safe and confident non-conveyance decisions. Reducing over-conveyance is a potential method of reducing demand in the urgent and emergency care system.

Outcomes for Patients Who Contact the Emergency Ambulance Service and Are Not Transported to the Emergency Department: A Data Linkage Study.

Objectives: Emergency ambulance services do not transport all patients to hospital. International literature reports non-transport rates ranging from 3.7-93.7%. In 2017, 38% of the 11 million calls received by ambulance services in England were attended by ambulance but not transported to an Emergency Department (ED). A further 10% received clinical advice over the telephone. Little is known about what happens to patients following a non-transport decision. We aimed to investigate what happens to patients following an emergency ambulance telephone call that resulted in a non-transport decision, using a linked routine data-set. Methods: Six-months individual patient level data from one ambulance service in England, linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and national mortality data, were used to identify subsequent health events (ambulance re-contact, ED attendance, hospital admission, death) within 3 days (primary analysis) and 7 days (secondary analysis) of an ambulance call ending in non-transport to hospital. Non-clinical staff used a priority dispatch system e.g. Medical Priority Dispatch System to prioritize calls for ambulance dispatch. Non-transport to ED was determined by ambulance crew members at scene or clinicians at the emergency operating center when an ambulance was not dispatched (telephone advice). Results: The data linkage rate was 85% for patients who were discharged at scene (43,108/50,894). After removal of deaths associated with end of life care (N = 312), 9% (3,861/42,796) re-contacted the ambulance service, 12.6% (5,412/42,796) attended ED, 6.3% (2,694/42,796) were admitted to hospital, and 0.3% (129/42,796) died within 3 days of the call. Rates were higher for events occurring within 7 days. For example, 12% re-contacted the ambulance service, 16.1% attended ED, 9.3% were admitted to hospital, and 0.5% died. The linkage rate for telephone advice calls was low because ambulance services record less information about these patients (24% 2,514/10,634). A sensitivity analysis identified a range of subsequent event rates: 2.5-10.5% of patients were admitted to hospital and 0.06-0.24% of patient died within 3 days of the call. Conclusions: Most non-transported patients did not have subsequent health events. Deaths after non-transport are an infrequent event that could be selected for more detailed review of individual cases, to facilitate learning and improvement.

Prioritizing novel and existing ambulance performance measures through expert and lay consensus: A three-stage multimethod consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Current ambulance quality and performance measures, such as response times, do not reflect the wider scope of care that services now provide. Using a three-stage consensus process, we aimed to identify new ways of measuring ambulance service quality and performance that represent service provider and public perspectives. DESIGN: A multistakeholder consensus event, modified Delphi study, and patient and public consensus workshop. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from ambulance services, patient and public involvement (PPI) groups, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policymakers. RESULTS: Nine measures/principles were highly prioritized by >75% of consensus event participants, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to further refine and prioritize measures; 20 measures in three domains scored ≥8/9, indicating good consensus, including proportion of calls correctly prioritized, time to definitive care and measures related to pain. Eighteen patient/public representatives attended a consensus workshop, and six measures were identified as important. These include time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain scores, calls correctly prioritized to appropriate levels of response and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Using consensus methods, we identified a shortlist of ambulance outcome and performance measures that are important to ambulance clinicians and service providers, service users, commissioners, and clinical academics, reflecting current pre-hospital ambulance care and services. The measures can potentially be used to assess pre-hospital quality or performance over time, with most calculated using routinely available data.

A coproduced patient and public event: An approach to developing and prioritizing ambulance performance measures.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as an important component of high-quality health services research. PPI is integral to the Pre-hospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme. The PPI event described in detail in this article focusses on the process of involving patients and public representatives in identifying, prioritizing and refining a set of outcome measures that can be used to support ambulance service performance measurement. OBJECTIVE: To obtain public feedback on little known, complex aspects of ambulance service performance measurement. DESIGN: The event was codesigned and coproduced with the PhOEBE PPI reference group and PhOEBE research team. The event consisted of brief researcher-led presentations, group discussions facilitated by the PPI reference group members and electronic voting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from eighteen patient and public representatives who attended an event venue in Yorkshire. RESULTS: The results of the PPI event showed that this interactive format and mode of delivery was an effective method to obtain public feedback and produced a clear indication of which ambulance performance measures were most highly favoured by event participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The event highlighted valuable contributions the PPI reference group made to the design process, supporting participant recruitment and facilitation of group discussions. In addition, the positive team working experience of the event proved a catalyst for further improvements in PPI within the PhOEBE project.

Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Rising demand for emergency and urgent care services is well documented, as are the consequences, for example, emergency department (ED) crowding, increased costs, pressure on services, and waiting times. Multiple factors have been suggested to explain why demand is increasing, including an aging population, rising number of people with multiple chronic conditions, and behavioral changes relating to how people choose to access health services. The aim of this systematic mapping review was to bring together published research from urgent and emergency care settings to identify drivers that underpin patient decisions to access urgent and emergency care. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted across Medline (via Ovid SP), EMBASE (via Ovid), The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via the Web of Knowledge), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; via EBSCOhost). Peer-reviewed studies written in English that reported reasons for accessing or choosing emergency or urgent care services and were published between 1995 and 2016 were included. Data were extracted and reasons for choosing emergency and urgent care were identified and mapped. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and findings were reported qualitatively using framework-based narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were set in the United Kingdom (39.4%) or the United States (34.2%) and reported results relating to ED (68.4%). Thirty-nine percent of studies utilized qualitative or mixed research designs. Our thematic analysis identified six broad themes that summarized reasons why patients chose to access ED or urgent care. These were access to and confidence in primary care; perceived urgency, anxiety, and the value of reassurance from emergency-based services; views of family, friends, or healthcare professionals; convenience (location, not having to make appointment, and opening hours); individual patient factors (e.g., cost); and perceived need for emergency medical services or hospital care, treatment, or investigations. CONCLUSIONS: We identified six distinct reasons explaining why patients choose to access emergency and urgent care services: limited access to or confidence in primary care; patient perceived urgency; convenience; views of family, friends, or other health professionals; and a belief that their condition required the resources and facilities offered by a particular healthcare provider. There is a need to examine demand from a whole system perspective to gain better understanding of demand for different parts of the emergency and urgent care system and the characteristics of patients within each sector.

A structured judgement method to enhance mortality case note review: development and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Case note review remains a prime means of retrospectively assessing quality of care. This study examines a new implicit judgement method, combining structured reviewer comments with quality of care scores, to assess care of people who die in hospital. METHODS: Using 1566 case notes from 20 English hospitals, 40 physicians each reviewed 30-40 case notes, writing structured judgement-based comments on care provided within three phases of care, and on care overall, and scoring quality of care from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 6 (very best care). Quality of care comments on 119 people who died (7.6% of the cohort) were analysed independently by two researchers to investigate how well reviewers provided structured short judgement notes on quality of care, together with appropriate care scores. Consistency between explanatory textual data and related scores was explored, using overall care score to group cases. RESULTS: Physician reviewers made informative, clinical judgement-based comments across all phases of care and usually provided a coherent quality of care score relating to each phase. The majority of comments (83%) were explicit judgements. About a fifth of patients were considered to have received less than satisfactory care, often experiencing a series of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of implicit judgement, explicit explanatory comment and related quality of care scores can be used effectively to review the spectrum of care provided for people who die in hospital. The method can be used to quickly evaluate deaths so that lessons can be learned about both poor and high quality care.

Implications of England's four-hour target for quality of care and resource use in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 2005, England implemented a controversial target limiting patient stays in the emergency department (ED) to 4 hours. We determine the effect of the "4-hour target" on quality of care and resource use. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 15 purposively sampled EDs in England, representing a range of performance on the target. The EDs provided administrative data on all visits for May and June, 2003 to 2006. These years spanned the period before the target until more than a year after full implementation. We assessed changes in admission rate, investigations, deaths in the ED, and return visits within 1 week for all patients and separately for those aged 65 years or older. Regression analyses adjusted for clustering at the hospital level and changes in acuity reflected by ambulance arrivals. Results are expressed as the estimated annual change in the percentage of patients experiencing the outcome, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 772,525 ED visits were analyzed; visits increased 19% during the 4-year period. Between 2003 and 2006, the percentage of patients arriving by ambulance decreased from 27.8% to 25.8% (annual change from 2003 -0.80%; 95% CI for change: -1.48% to -0.12%). Visits by individuals aged 65 years or older were stable (19.9% to 19.1%; annual change -0.19%; 95% CI for change -0.44% to 0.06%). Between 2003 and 2006, admissions from the ED were unchanged, at 23% (95% CI for change -0.43% to 1.11%). The percentage of patients receiving blood tests increased from 13.8% to 19.8% (annual change 1.00%; 95% CI for change -0.09% to 2.08%). Frequency of radiologic studies decreased slightly, from 38.0% to 35.7% (annual change -0.60%; 95% CI -1.58% to 0.37%). Deaths in the ED and return ED visits within 1 week were unchanged. Return visits resulting in hospital admission increased initially and then returned to 2003 levels (annual change -3.10%; 95% CI -7.32% to 1.11%). CONCLUSION: England's 4-hour target did not appear to have a negative effect on quality or safety of ED care and had little effect on test use.

The appropriateness of, and compliance with, telephone triage decisions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

AIM: This paper is a report of the synthesis of evidence on the appropriateness of, and compliance with, telephone triage decisions. BACKGROUND: Telephone triage plays an important role in managing demand for health care. Important questions are whether triage decisions are appropriate and patients comply with them. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Psyc Info were searched between 1980-June 2010. LITERATURE REVIEW: Rapid Evidence Synthesis. REVIEW METHODS: The principles of rapid evidence assessment were followed. RESULTS: We identified 54 relevant papers: 26 papers reported appropriateness of triage decision, 26 papers reported compliance with triage decision, and 2 papers reported both. Nurses triaged calls in most of the studies (n=49). Triage decisions rated as appropriate varied between 44-98% and compliance ranged from 56-98%. Variation could not be explained by type of service or method of assessing appropriateness. However, inconsistent definitions of appropriateness may explain some variation. Triage decisions to contact primary care may have lower compliance than decisions to contact emergency services or self care. CONCLUSION: Telephone triage services can offer appropriate decisions and decisions that callers comply with. However, the association between the appropriateness of a decision and subsequent compliance requires further investigation and further consideration needs to be given to the minority of calls which are inappropriately managed. We suggest that a definition of appropriateness incorporating both accuracy and adequacy of triage decision should be encouraged.

Quality and safety of care provided by emergency care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The emergency care practitioner (ECP) role in the UK health service involves paramedic and nurse practitioners with advanced training to assess and treat minor illness and injury. Available evidence suggests that the introduction of this role has been advantageous in terms of managing an increased demand for emergency care, but there is little evidence regarding the quality and safety implications of ECP schemes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare the quality and safety of care provided by ECPs with non-ECP (eg, paramedic, nurse practitioner) care across three different types of emergency care settings: static services (emergency department, walk-in-centre, minor injury unit); ambulance/care home services (mobile); primary care out of hours services. METHODS: A retrospective patient case note review was conducted to compare the quality and safety of care provided by ECPs and non-ECPs across matched sites in three types of emergency care settings. Retrospective assessment of care provided was conducted by experienced clinicians. The study was part of a larger trial evaluating ECP schemes (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN22085282). RESULTS: Care provided by ECPs was rated significantly higher than that of non-ECPs across some aspects of care. The differences detected, although statistically significant, are small and may not reflect clinical significance. On other aspects of care, ECPs were rated as equal to their non-ECP counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: As a minimum, care provided should meet the standards of existing service models and the findings from the study suggest that this is true of ECPs regardless of the service they are operational in.

Time patients spend in the emergency department: England's 4-hour rule-a case of hitting the target but missing the point?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To address concerns about prolonged emergency department (ED) stays from crowding, England mandated that the maximum length of ED stay for 98% of patients be no greater than 4 hours. We evaluate the effect of the mandated ED care intervals in England. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of ED patient throughput before, during, and after implementation of the target. Fifteen acute hospital trusts' ED data were purposively sampled, including all patient visits during May and June of 2003 to 2006. We compared total time in ED and time to clinician across years, segregating for admitted versus discharged patients and young versus old patients, using a random-effects regression model and adjusting for hospital clustering. RESULTS: We analyzed 735,588 ED visits. The proportion of patients seen and treated within 4 hours improved from 83.9% to 96.3%. Adjusted total length of ED stay from 2003 to 2006 increased by 8.6 minutes for all patients and 30 minutes for admissions; time to physician improved by 1 minute for all patients. The proportion of patients leaving the ED during the last 20 minutes before 4 hours increased from 4.7% of all patients in 2003 to 8.4% in 2006. Admitted patients were more likely than discharged ones to leave the ED in the last 20 minutes, and the relative likelihood increased each year after 2003, with incidence rate ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.39), 1.39 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.82), and 1.55 (95% CI 1.19 to 2.20) for 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively. An increasing proportion of elderly patients were in the last 20-minute departure interval each year compared with younger patients (in 2003 7.4% versus 4.1%; in 2006 17.3% versus 6.3%). CONCLUSION: The introduction of a time target reduced the proportion of patients staying greater than 4 hours. More patients departed within 20 minutes of the target 4-hour interval after the mandate, notably, the elderly.

Do walk-in centres for commuters work? A mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Between 2005 and 2007, six pilot walk-in centres were opened in or near train stations, to provide health care to commuters. They are run by independent providers on behalf of the NHS, providing access to doctors and nurses. AIM: To evaluate the policy of commuter walk-in centres. DESIGN OF STUDY: Mixed methods evaluation. SETTING: Six centres in England. METHOD: Site visits, interviews with 28 users, survey of 1828 users, economic estimates, and interviews with six commissioning managers. RESULTS: Each centre was located near a train station, although two were not within the main commuter flow. The average number of patients attending each centre on days when the user survey was undertaken was between 33 and 101 per day, considerably lower than the planned capacity of 150-180. Sixty-two per cent (1004/1627) of users identified themselves as commuters within the user survey, and 38% (95% confidence interval = 13% to 62%) had travelled to work by train that day. A large proportion of users worked in the local area (61%). The estimated cost per attendance, based on limited activity and price data, was between £52 and £150 for different centres at estimated current activity levels. Primary care trust managers' plans for the future of the centres involved changing the focus of the service to fit their local health economy. CONCLUSION: Pilot walk-in centres placed near train stations for commuters had low activity levels and high costs. A policy of placing healthcare centres in areas of high worker density may be more successful.

User satisfaction with commuter walk-in centres.

Pilot commuter walk-in centres have been located close to national rail stations in major English cities, provided by private healthcare companies for the NHS, and offering access to doctors and nurses. This study used a survey to evaluate user satisfaction levels with this new service. Thirty-three per cent (1828/5574) of users completed a questionnaire. Centres demonstrated high levels of user satisfaction (69% 'very satisfied', 95% confidence interval = 58% to 79%) overall, but satisfaction was lower for some aspects of care such as waiting times.