Exploring advanced clinical practitioner perspectives on training, role identity and competence: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) are a new role that have been established to address gaps and support the existing medical workforce in an effort to help reduce increasing pressures on NHS services. ACPs have the potential to practice at a similar level to mid-grade medical staff, for example independently undertaking assessments, requesting and interpreting investigations, and diagnosing and discharging patients. These roles have been shown to improve both service outcomes and quality of patient care. However, there is currently no widespread formalised standard of training within the UK resulting in variations in the training experiences and clinical capabilities of ACPs. We sought to explore the training experiences of ACPs as well as their views on role identity and future development of the role. METHODS: Five online focus groups were conducted between March and May 2021 with trainee and qualified advanced clinical practitioners working in a range of healthcare settings, in the North of England. The focus groups aimed to explore the experiences of undertaking ACP training including supervision, gaining competence, role identity and career progression. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts was performed, informed by grounded theory principles. RESULTS: Fourteen advanced clinical practitioners participated. Analysis revealed that training was influenced by internal and external perceptions of the role, often acting as barriers, with structural aspects being significant contributory factors. Key themes identified (1) clinical training lacked structure and support, negatively impacting progress, (2) existing knowledge and experience acted as both an enabler and inhibitor, with implications for confidence, (3) the role and responsibilities are poorly understood by both advanced clinical practitioners and the wider medical profession and (4) advanced clinical practitioners recognised the value and importance of the role but felt changes were necessary, to provide security and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate structure and support are crucial throughout the training process to enable staff to have a smooth transition to advanced level, ensuring they obtain the necessary confidence and competence. Structural changes and knowledge brokering are essential, particularly in relation to role clarity and its responsibilities, sufficient allocated time to learn and practice, role accreditation and continuous appropriate supervision.

What impact would reducing low-acuity attendance have on emergency department length of stay? A discrete event simulation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long waiting times in the ED have been shown to cause negative outcomes for patients. This study aims to assess the effect in reducing length of stay of (1) preventing low-acuity attenders from attending the ED and (2) diverting low-acuity attenders at triage to a colocated general practice (GP) service. METHODS: Discrete event simulation was used to model a large urban teaching hospital in the UK, as a case study, with a colocated GP service. The Centre for Urgent and Emergency Care research database patient-level database (May 2015-April 2016), secondary literature and expert elicitation were used to inform the model. The model predicted length of stay, the percentage of patients being seen within 4 hours and the incremental cost-effectiveness of the colocated GP service. RESULTS: The model predicted that diverting low-acuity patients to a colocated GP open 9:00 to 17:00 reduces the average time in the system for higher acuity attenders by 29 min at an estimated additional cost of £6.76 per patient on average. The percentage of higher acuity patients being seen within 4 hours increased from 61% to 67% due to the reduction in the length of stay of those who were in the ED for the longest time. However, the model is sensitive to changes in model inputs and there is uncertainty around ED activity durations, for which further primary data collection would be useful. CONCLUSION: Reducing the proportion of low-acuity attenders at the ED could have an impact on the time in the ED for higher acuity patients due to their use of shared resources, but is insufficient alone to meet current targets. The simulation model could be adapted for further analyses to understand which other changes would be needed to meet current government targets.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: retrospective diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance services need to identify and prioritise patients with sepsis for early hospital assessment. We aimed to determine the accuracy of early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis that required urgent treatment. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective diagnostic cohort study involving adult emergency medical cases transported to Sheffield Teaching Hospitals ED by Yorkshire Ambulance Service in 2019. We used routine ambulance service data to calculate 21 early warning scores and categorise paramedic diagnostic impressions as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation or other presentation. We linked cases to hospital records and identified those meeting the sepsis-3 definition who received urgent hospital treatment for sepsis (reference standard). Analysis determined the accuracy of strategies that combined early warning scores at varying thresholds for positivity with paramedic diagnostic impression. RESULTS: We linked 12 870/24 955 (51.6%) cases and identified 348/12 870 (2.7%) with a positive reference standard. None of the strategies provided sensitivity greater than 0.80 with positive predictive value greater than 0.15. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2) applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection was 0.756 (95% CI 0.729, 0.783). No other early warning score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Paramedic impression of sepsis or infection had sensitivity of 0.572 (0.519, 0.623) and positive predictive value of 0.156 (0.137, 0.176). NEWS2 thresholds of >4, >6 and >8 applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection, respectively, provided sensitivities and positive predictive values of 0.522 (0.469, 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189, 0.245), 0.447 (0.395, 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239, 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268, 0.365) and 0.333 (0.284, 0.386). CONCLUSION: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2 alongside paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5268, https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/5de7bbd97ca5b50015041c33/.

Exploring the characteristics, acuity and management of adult ED patients at night-time.

OBJECTIVES: ED care is required for acutely unwell and injured patients 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The aim of this study was to compare characteristics and activity of type 1 ED attendances according to whether their time of arrival was during the day (08:00-18:00) or at night (18:00-08:00). METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from NHS Digital for all A&E and admitted patient care activity provided by all acute (not mental health or primary care) NHS hospital trusts in Yorkshire and Humber (1 April 2011 to 31 March 2014) for adult patients were analysed. Adjusted linear and logistic regression was used to model the data. RESULTS: Adjusted regression analysis results show that patients who attended ED at night waited an extra 18.76 (95% CI 18.62 to 18.89) min to be seen by a clinician. They also spent an additional 13.64 (95% CI 13.47 to 13.81) min total in ED. Patients who attended at night were OR 2.20 (95% CI 2.17 to 2.23) times more likely to leave without being seen. They were also OR 1.26 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.27) times more likely to re-attend the ED and were OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.21) times more likely to present with non-urgent conditions. Overnight patients were more likely to be admitted to hospital, OR 1.09 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.10) times, however, those admitted were more likely to have a short-stay admission. CONCLUSION: There is an 'overnight effect' of patients attending EDs. Patients wait longer, leave without being seen, attend with non-urgent problems and are more likely to be admitted for a short stay. Further work is required to identify the potential underlying causes of these differences.

Urgent care axis for the older adult: where is best to target interventions?

BACKGROUND: We explored the urgent care axis across EDs in Yorkshire and Humber (Y&H) for patients aged ≥75 years to identify where interventions could be targeted to prevent ED attendances and inpatient admissions. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for attendances across 18 EDs in Y&H from April 2011 to March 2014 were retrospectively analysed. HES A&E and Admitted Patient Care patient records data were linked to describe the entire patient pathway. The population studied was adult patients attending type 1 EDs, comparing those ≥75 years with those under 75. Data analysed included arrival mode, presentation time, time in ED, outcome (admitted/discharged), admission length of stay, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) and cause codes related to admission. Short-stay admissions and admissions with potentially avoidable conditions (identified by ICD-10 codes and cause codes) were identified. Comparative analysis was undertaken between sites. RESULTS: There were 3 736 541 ED attendances, of which 625 772 (16.7%) were ≥75 years. Older patients were significantly more likely to attend via ambulance than the younger cohort (OR 7.7, 95% CI 7.6 to 7.7), and had significantly longer median stays within ED (195 vs 136 min, p<0.001) and increased likelihood of admission (OR 4.5, 95% CI 4.5 to 4.6). Short-stay admissions accounted for 28.3% of older adult admissions. 37.3% of older adult admissions were with conditions that were potentially avoidable, accounting for 42.3% of short-stay admissions. There was regional variation in the proportions of older adults admitted (between 34.3% and 40.9%). DISCUSSION: Large numbers of older adults present to EDs mainly by ambulance. Significant proportions are admitted for short periods with conditions that might potentially be managed outside of hospital. Variation across the region warrants further study.

What is the evidence for the management of patients along the pathway from the emergency department to acute admission to reduce unplanned attendance and admission? An evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rate of emergency hospital admissions is increasing. However, little evidence exists to inform the development of interventions to reduce unplanned Emergency Department (ED) attendances and hospital admissions. The objective of this evidence synthesis was to review the evidence for interventions, conducted during the patient's journey through the ED or acute care setting, to manage people with an exacerbation of a medical condition to reduce unplanned emergency hospital attendance and admissions. METHODS: A rapid evidence synthesis, using a systematic literature search, was undertaken in the electronic data bases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science, for the years 2000-2014. Evidence included in this review was restricted to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control arm) reported in peer-reviewed journals. Studies evaluating interventions for patients with an acute exacerbation of a medical condition in the ED or acute care setting which reported at least one outcome related to ED attendance or unplanned admission were included. RESULTS: Thirty papers met our inclusion criteria: 19 intervention studies (14 RCTs) and 11 controlled observational studies. Sixteen studies were set in the ED and 14 were conducted in an acute setting. Two studies (one RCT), set in the ED were effective in reducing ED attendance and hospital admission. Both of these interventions were initiated in the ED and included a post-discharge community component. Paradoxically 3 ED initiated interventions showed an increase in ED re-attendance. Six studies (1 RCT) set in acute care settings were effective in reducing: hospital admission, ED re-attendance or re-admission (two in an observation ward, one in an ED assessment unit and three in which the intervention was conducted within 72 h of admission). CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence that specific interventions along the patient journey from ED arrival to 72 h after admission benefit ED re-attendance or readmission. Interventions targeted at high-risk patients, particularly the elderly, may reduce ED utilization and warrant future research. Some interventions showing effectiveness in reducing unplanned ED attendances and admissions are delivered by appropriately trained personnel in an environment that allows sufficient time to assess and manage patients.

An evaluation of the referral process in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Making an effective telephone referral is an important skill for an emergency department (ED) clinician. It is essential for patient safety that the information is conveyed in a succinct manner to the correct inpatient specialty. The aim of this study was to assess: the impact of grade of staff making the referral; specialty referred to; and condition or patient problem. It also aimed to identify current problems or barriers in the referral process. METHODS: This prospective study took place in one large teaching hospital in the UK. There were two parts: data collection to obtain information on each referral made by ED staff; and questionnaires administered to obtain opinions on the current referral process from both staff making and receiving the referrals. RESULTS: Data were collected over 6 days and included 362 referrals. The mean evaluation of the referral process (scored 0-4) for all referrals was 3.34 (SD 0.95). 22 ED staff responding (64.7%) felt that some specialties were more difficult to refer to than others. 60.6% of non-ED staff accepting referrals felt they would like some form of senior ED screening process prior to referral compared with 20.6% of ED staff. The most common topics commented on were communication, education and process. DISCUSSION: There are differences in understanding and opinion between ED and non-ED staff about the referral process. There are also factors which influence ease of referral: specialty referring to and patient problem. More intervention studies are required to identify solutions that can be implemented and sustained in routine practice.

Correction: Patient compliance with NHS 111 advice: Analysis of adult call and ED attendance data 2013-2017.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251362.].

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

Patient compliance with NHS 111 advice: Analysis of adult call and ED attendance data 2013-2017.

The NHS 111 telephone advice and triage service is a vital part of the management of urgent and emergency care (UEC) services in England. Demand for NHS 111 advice has increased since its introduction in 2013, and the service is of particular importance in light of the current pandemic and resulting increased demand for emergency care. Currently, little is known about the effectiveness of NHS 111 in terms of the appropriateness of the advice given, or about the compliance of patients with that advice. We aimed to address this issue by analysing a large linked routine dataset of all NHS 111 calls (n = 3,631,069) and subsequent emergency department (ED) attendances made in the Yorkshire & Humber region from March 2013-March 2017. We found that many patients do not comply with advice, with 11% (n = 289,748) of patients attending ED when they are advised to self-care or seek primary care. We also found that a considerable number of these patients are further classed as urgent (88%, n = 255,931) and a substantial minority (37%, 106,207) are subsequently admitted to hospital. Further, many patients who are sent an ambulance or told to attend ED are classed as non-urgent upon attending ED (9%, n = 42,372). This research suggests that the level at which NHS 111 is currently triaging results in many hundreds of thousands of mis-triaged cases annually. Additionally, patients frequently do not comply with the advice they receive. This has implications for understanding the accuracy and efficiency of triaging systems.

The impact of the 4 h target on patient care and outcomes in the Emergency Department: an analysis of hospital incidence data.

BACKGROUND: Recent government initiatives in the NHS have seen patient care becoming increasingly target-driven. However, the impact of targets, particularly those based on a timeframe, have not been extensively studied, and concerns remain about unintended consequences for patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a 4 h target in the Emergency Department (ED) on patient care and outcomes. METHODS: The study comprised an interrupted time-series regression analysis of anonymised patient-level data from 580,000 new patient episodes in the ED between April 2000 and Feb 2006. Outcomes were time in ED, time to clinician, mortality, admission and reattendance rates, and number of investigations. RESULTS: 90% target was associated with reductions in time in department and fewer patients admitted for less than 24 and 48 h, and a slight increase in the number reattending within 7 days. 98% target was associated with levelling-off of time in department and reductions in numbers admitted and reattending within 7 days. Neither target was associated with change in time to clinician. The introduction of a minor injuries unit (MIU) was associated with reductions in time to clinician and percentage not waiting, and increases in number of investigations, percentages admitted, admitted for 24 h and reattendances within 7 days. Mortality was unaffected by either target or MIU. CONCLUSION: Although time target introduction is associated with changes in patient care, the introduction of a co-located MIU had greater impact.

Are emergency department junior doctors becoming less experienced in performing common practical procedures?

A questionnaire was designed to measure junior doctors' experience of performing practical procedures and was distributed to all junior doctors working in our emergency department during June 2005 and June 2006. The junior doctors were subjectively less experienced in all the procedures measured in 2006 compared to 2005. There were statistically significant reductions in experience of shoulder manipulation, suturing and wound exploration. Junior doctors are becoming less experienced in performing some practical procedures.