The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak. DESIGN: Rapid realist literature review. SETTING: Emergency departments. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments. AIM: To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069741.

Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices may help to maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We evaluated whether or not the introduction of Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assistance System-2 (LUCAS-2; Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the LUCAS-2 device as a routine ambulance service treatment for OHCA. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial including adults with non-traumatic OHCA. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were blind to treatment allocation. Blinding of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. We also conducted a health economic evaluation and a systematic review of all trials of out-of-hospital mechanical chest compression. SETTING: Four UK ambulance services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales and South Central), comprising 91 urban and semiurban ambulance stations. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (approximately 1 : 2) to the LUCAS-2 device or manual CPR. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment. Exclusions were patients with cardiac arrest as a result of trauma, with known or clinically apparent pregnancy, or aged < 18 years. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest; survival without significant neurological impairment [Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2]. RESULTS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 device and 2819 assigned to control) between 15 April 2010 and 10 June 2013. A total of 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression and 11 (< 1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30-day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 (104/1652, 6.3%) and manual CPR groups [193/2819, 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.15]. Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 may have been worse in the LUCAS-2 group (adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99). No serious adverse events were noted. The systematic review found no evidence of a survival advantage if mechanical chest compression was used. The health economic analysis showed that LUCAS-2 was dominated by manual chest compression. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial non-compliance in the LUCAS-2 arm. For 272 out of 1652 patients (16.5%), mechanical chest compression was not used for reasons that would not occur in clinical practice. We addressed this issue by using complier average causal effect analyses. We attempted to measure CPR quality during the resuscitation attempts of trial participants, but were unable to do so. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of improvement in 30-day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. Our systematic review of recent randomised trials did not suggest that survival or survival without significant disability may be improved by the use of mechanical chest compression. FUTURE WORK: The use of mechanical chest compression for in-hospital cardiac arrest, and in specific circumstances (e.g. transport), has not yet been evaluated. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN08233942. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Unscheduled return visits (URV) in adults to the emergency department (ED): a rapid evidence assessment policy review.

Unscheduled return visits (URV) to the emergency department (ED) may be an important quality indicator of performance of individual clinicians as well as organisations and systems responsible for the delivery of emergency care. The aim of this study was to perform a rapid evidence assessment policy-based literature review of studies that have looked at URVs presenting to the ED. A rapid evidence assessment using SCOPUS and PUBMED was used to identify articles looking at unplanned returns to EDs in adults; those relating to specific complaints or frequent attenders were not included. After exclusions, we identified 26 articles. We found a reported URV rate of between 0.4% and 43.9% with wide variation in the time period defined for a URV, which ranged from 24 h to undefined. Thematic analysis identified four broad subtypes of URVs: related to patient factors, to the illness, to the system or organisation and to the clinician. This review informed the development of national clinical quality indicators for England. URV rates may serve as an important indicator of quality performance within the ED. However, review of the literature shows major inconsistencies in the way URVs are defined and measured. Furthermore, the review has highlighted that there are potentially at least four subcategories of URVs (patient related, illness related, system related and clinician related). Further work is in progress to develop standardised definitions and methodologies that will allow comparable research and allow URVs to be used reliably as a quality indicator for the ED.

Emergency department treatments and physiotherapy for acute whiplash: a pragmatic, two-step, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effectiveness of treatments for acute whiplash injury. We aimed to estimate whether training of staff in emergency departments to provide active management consultations was more effective than usual consultations (Step 1) and to estimate whether a physiotherapy package was more effective than one additional physiotherapy advice session in patients with persisting symptoms (Step 2). METHODS: Step 1 was a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial of 12 NHS Trust hospitals including 15 emergency departments who treated patients with acute whiplash associated disorder of grades I-III. The hospitals were randomised by clusters to either active management or usual care consultations. In Step 2, we used a nested individually randomised trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a package of up to six physiotherapy sessions or a single advice session. Randomisation in Step 2 was stratified by centre. Investigator-masked outcomes were obtained at 4, 8, and 12 months. Masking of clinicians and patients was not possible in all steps of the trial. The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Analysis was intention to treat, and included an economic evaluation. The study is registered ISRCTN33302125. FINDINGS: Recruitment ran from Dec 5, 2005 to Nov 30, 2007. Follow-up was completed on Dec 19, 2008. In Step 1, 12 NHS Trusts were randomised, and 3851 of 6952 eligible patients agreed to participate (1598 patients were assigned to usual care and 2253 patients were assigned to active management). 2704 (70%) of 3851 patients provided data at 12 months. NDI score did not differ between active management and usual care consultations (difference at 12 months 0·5, 95% CI -1·5 to 2·5). In Step 2, 599 patients were randomly assigned to receive either advice (299 patients) or a physiotherapy package (300 patients). 479 (80%) patients provided data at 12 months. The physiotherapy package at 4 months showed a modest benefit compared to advice (NDI difference -3·7, -6·1 to -1·3), but not at 8 or 12 months. Active management consultations and the physiotherapy package were more expensive than usual care and single advice session. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths were noted. INTERPRETATION: Provision of active management consultation did not show additional benefit. A package of physiotherapy gave a modest acceleration to early recovery of persisting symptoms but was not cost effective from a UK NHS perspective. Usual consultations in emergency departments and a single physiotherapy advice session for persistent symptoms are recommended. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Healthcare quality improvement -- policy implications and practicalities.

PURPOSE: This article aims to explore quality improvement (QI) at individual, group and organisational level. It also aims to identify restraining forces using formative evaluation and discuss implications for current UK policy, particularly quality, innovation, productivity and prevention. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Learning events combined with work-based projects, focusing on individual and group responses are evaluated. A total of 11 multi-disciplinary groups drawn from NHS England healthcare Trusts (self-governing operational groups) were sampled. These Trusts have different geographic locations and participants were drawn from primary, secondary and commissioning arms. Mixed methods: questionnaires, observations and reflective accounts were used. FINDINGS: The paper finds that solution versus problem identification causes confusion and influences success. Time for problem solving to achieve QI was absent. Feedback and learning structures are often not in place or inflexible. Limited focus on patient-centred services may be related to past assumptions regarding organisational design, hence assumptions and models need to be understood and challenged. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors revise the Plan, Do, Study; Act (PDSA) model by adding an explicit problem identification step and hence avoiding solution-focused habits; demonstrating the need for more formative evaluations to inform managers and policy makers about healthcare QI processes. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: - Although UK-centric, the quality agenda is a USA and European theme, findings may help those embarking on this journey or those struggling with QI.

Systematic review of trends in emergency department attendances: an Australian perspective.

Emergency departments (EDs) in many developed countries are experiencing increasing pressure due to rising numbers of patient presentations and emergency admissions. Reported increases range up to 7% annually. Together with limited inpatient bed capacity, this contributes to prolonged lengths of stay in the ED; disrupting timely access to urgent care, posing a threat to patient safety. The aim of this review is to summarise the findings of studies that have investigated the extent of and the reasons for increasing emergency presentations. To do this, a systematic review and synthesis of published and unpublished reports describing trends and underlying drivers associated with the increase in ED presentations in developed countries was conducted. Most published studies provided evidence of increasing ED attendances within developed countries. A series of inter-related factors have been proposed to explain the increase in emergency demand. These include changes in demography and in the organisation and delivery of healthcare services, as well as improved health awareness and community expectations arising from health promotion campaigns. The factors associated with increasing ED presentations are complex and inter-related and include rising community expectations regarding access to emergency care in acute hospitals. A systematic investigation of the demographic, socioeconomic and health-related factors highlighted by this review is recommended. This would facilitate untangling the dynamics of the increase in emergency demand.

Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is closely linked to the quality of CPR, but in real life, resuscitation during prehospital care and ambulance transport is often suboptimal. Mechanical chest compression devices deliver consistent chest compressions, are not prone to fatigue and could potentially overcome some of the limitations of manual chest compression. However, there is no high-quality evidence that they improve clinical outcomes, or that they are cost effective. The Prehospital Randomised Assessment of a Mechanical Compression Device In Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial is a pragmatic cluster randomised study of the LUCAS-2 device in adult patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of chest compression using LUCAS-2 on mortality at 30 days post out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, compared with manual chest compression. Secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the effects of LUCAS-2 on survival to 12 months, cognitive and quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Ambulance service vehicles will be randomised to either manual compression (control) or LUCAS arms. Adult patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, attended by a trial vehicle will be eligible for inclusion. Patients with traumatic cardiac arrest or who are pregnant will be excluded. The trial will recruit approximately 4000 patients from England, Wales and Scotland. A waiver of initial consent has been approved by the Research Ethics Committees. Consent will be sought from survivors for participation in the follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: The trial will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of the LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression device. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN08233942).

Introducing service improvement to the initial training of clinical staff.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognised in healthcare settings that clinical staff have a major influence over change in how services are provided. If a culture of systematic service improvement is to be established, it is essential that clinical staff have an understanding of what is required and their role in its application. METHODS: This paper describes the development of short educational interventions (a module of 6-8 contact hours or a longer module of 18-30 h) for inclusion in the initial training of future clinical staff (nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics, social work, operating department practice, public health and clinical psychology) and presents the results of an evaluation of their introduction. Each module included teaching on process/systems thinking, initiating and sustaining change, personal and organisational development, and public and patient involvement. RESULTS: Over 90% of students considered the modules relevant to their career. Nearly 90% of students felt that they could put their learning into practice, although the actual rate of implementation of changes during the pilot period was much lower. The barriers to implementation most commonly cited were blocks presented by existing staff, lack of time and lack of status of students within the workforce. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrates that short educational interventions focused on service improvement are valued by students and that those completing them feel ready to contribute. Nevertheless, the rate of translation into practice is low. While this may reflect the status of students in the health service, further research is needed to understand how this might be enhanced.

Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): design of a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash associated disorders.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with whiplash injuries develop chronic symptoms. However, the best treatment of acute injuries to prevent long-term problems is uncertain. A stepped care treatment pathway has been proposed, in which patients are given advice and education at their initial visit to the emergency department (ED), followed by review at three weeks and physiotherapy for those with persisting symptoms. MINT is a two-stage randomised controlled trial to evaluate two components of such a pathway: 1. use of The Whiplash Book versus usual advice when patients first attend the emergency department; 2. referral to physiotherapy versus reinforcement of advice for patients with continuing symptoms at three weeks. METHODS: Evaluation of the Whiplash Book versus usual advice uses a cluster randomised design in emergency departments of eight NHS Trusts. Eligible patients are identified by clinicians in participating emergency departments and are sent a study questionnaire within a week of their ED attendance. Three thousand participants will be included. Patients with persisting symptoms three weeks after their ED attendance are eligible to join an individually randomised study of physiotherapy versus reinforcement of the advice given in ED. Six hundred participants will be randomised. Follow-up is at 4, 8 and 12 months after their ED attendance. Primary outcome is the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and secondary outcomes include quality of life and time to return to work and normal activities. An economic evaluation is being carried out. CONCLUSION: This paper describes the protocol and operational aspects of a complex intervention trial based in NHS emergency and physiotherapy departments, evaluating two components of a stepped-care approach to the treatment of whiplash injuries. The trial uses two randomisations, with the first stage being cluster randomised and the second individually randomised.