Older persons are frailer after an emergency care visit to the out-of-hours general practitioner cooperative in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional descriptive TOPICS-MDS study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, community-dwelling older people with primary care emergency problems contact the General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC) after hours. However, frailty remains an often unobserved hazard with adverse health outcomes. The aim of this study was to provide insight into differences between older persons with or without GPC emergency care visits (reference group) regarding frailty and healthcare use. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study design was based on data from the public data repository of The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum Dataset (TOPICS-MDS). Frailty in older persons (65+ years, n = 32,149) was measured by comorbidity, functional and psychosocial aspects, quality of life and a frailty index. Furthermore, home care use and hospital admissions of older persons were identified. We performed multilevel logistic and linear regression analyses. A random intercept model was utilised to test differences between groups, and adjustment factors (confounders) were used in the multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Compared to the reference group, older persons with GPC contact were frailer in the domain of comorbidity (mean difference 0.52; 95% CI 0.47-0.57, p < 0.0001) and functional limitations (mean difference 0.53; 95% CI 0.46-0.60, p < 0.0001), and they reported less emotional wellbeing (mean difference - 4.10; 95% CI -4.59- -3.60, p < 0.0001) and experienced a lower quality of life (mean difference - 0.057; 95% CI -0.064- -0.050, p < 0.0001). Moreover, older persons more often reported limited social functioning (OR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.39-1.62, p < 0.0001) and limited perceived health (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.39-1.62, p < 0.0001). Finally, older persons with GPC contact more often used home care (OR = 1.37; 95% CI 1.28-1.47, p < 0.0001) or were more often admitted to the hospital (OR = 2.88; 95% CI 2.71-3.06, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Older persons with out-of-hours GPC contact for an emergency care visit were significantly frailer in all domains and more likely to use home care or to be admitted to the hospital compared to the reference group. Potentially frail older persons seemed to require adequate identification of frailty and support (e.g., advanced care planning) both before and after a contact with the out-of-hours GPC.

[Care contacts of elderly patients in the emergency care pathway: a retrospective cohort study]. / Zorgcontacten van ouderen in de acute-zorgketen.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the differences in emergency care offered to elderly (65+ years) and younger patients (20-64 years). The emergency care pathway includes: out-of-hours general practitioner cooperatives, regional ambulance services, psychiatric emergency medical services, accident and emergency departments and acute cardiac care units. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHOD: We used data from all emergency care contacts from the Emergency Care Monitor of April 2015 and April 2016 from an emergency care region in the east of the Netherlands ('Acute Zorgregio Oost'); this involved 84,647 care contacts with 55,061 patients. We defined pathway emergency care contacts as multiple emergency care contacts with different healthcare providers within the emergency care pathway, and differentiated between single or repeated care contacts with a single emergency healthcare provider. We investigated differences in presenting symptoms, diagnoses, lead time, hospital admissions and mortality in the chain care. RESULTS: Emergency care contact was more often pathway contact in elderly than in younger patients (26% vs. 16%; p < 0.0001). Elderly patients more often received a diagnosis of CVA, pneumonia or exacerbation of COPD, while younger patients more often had simple contusions or abdominal symptoms. Pathway lead time was longer in elderly than in younger patients (median difference: 33 minutes; 95% CI: 25-40. Elderly patients were admitted to hospital more often (71% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001) and their mortality rate was higher (2.0% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients in the emergency care pathway have more frequent and longer pathway contact and present themselves with a more complicated and life-threatening clinical picture than younger patients. New solutions should be explored to ensure that the emergency care pathway remains accessible and available and offers sufficient quality for the increasing number of elderly.

Solo emergency care by a physician assistant versus an ambulance nurse: a cross-sectional document study.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the assessment, treatment, referral, and follow up contact with the dispatch centre of emergency patients treated by two types of solo emergency care providers in ambulance emergency medical services (EMS) in the Netherlands: the physician assistant (PA), educated in the medical domain, and the ambulance registered nurse (RN), educated in the nursing domain. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no difference in outcome of care between the patients of PAs and RNs. METHODS: In a cross-sectional document study in two EMS regions we included 991 patients, treated by two PAs (n = 493) and 23 RNs (n = 498). The inclusion period was October 2010-December 2012 for region 1 and January 2013-March 2014 for region 2. Emergency care data were drawn from predefined and free text fields in the electronic patient records. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. We used χ (2) and Mann-Whitney U tests to analyse for differences in outcome of care. Statistical significance was assumed at a level of P <0.05. RESULTS: Patients treated by PAs and RNs were similar with respect to patient characteristics. In general, diagnostic measurements according to the national EMS standard were applied by RNs and by PAs. In line with the medical education, PAs used a medical diagnostic approach (16 %, n = 77) and a systematic physical exam of organ tract systems (31 %, n = 155). PAs and RNs provided similar interventions. Additionally, PAs consulted more often other medical specialists (33 %) than RNs (17 %) (χ (2) = 35.5, P <0.0001). PAs referred less patients to the general practitioner or emergency department (50 %) compared to RNs (73 %) (χ (2) = 52.9, P <0.0001). Patient follow up contact with the dispatch centre within 72 h after completion of the emergency care on scene showed no variation between PAs (5 %) and RNs (4 %). CONCLUSIONS: In line with their medical education, PAs seemed to operate from a more general medical perspective. They used a medical diagnostic approach, consulted more medical specialists, and referred significantly less patients to other health care professionals compared to RNs. While the patients of the PAs did not contact the dispatch centre more often afterwards.