Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Current provision of general practitioner services in or alongside emergency departments in England.
Brant, Heather; Voss, Sarah; Morton, Katherine; Cooper, Alison; Edwards, Michelle; Price, Delyth; Gaughan, James; Edwards, Adrian; Benger, Jonathan.
Afiliación
  • Brant H; Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK heather2.brant@uwe.ac.uk.
  • Voss S; Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
  • Morton K; Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
  • Cooper A; Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  • Edwards M; Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  • Price D; Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  • Gaughan J; Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK.
  • Edwards A; Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK.
  • Benger J; Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Emerg Med J ; 38(10): 780-783, 2021 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33619158
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In 2017, general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department (GPED), an approach that employs GPs in or alongside the ED to address increasing ED demand, was advocated by the National Health Service in England and supported by capital funding. However, little is known about the models of GPED that have been implemented.

METHODS:

Data were collected at two time points September 2017 and December 2019, on the GPED model in use (if any) at 163/177 (92%) type 1 EDs in England. Models were categorised according to a taxonomy as 'inside/integrated', 'inside/parallel', 'outside/onsite' or 'outside/offsite'. Multiple data sources used included on-line surveys, interviews, case study data and publicly available information.

RESULTS:

An increase of EDs using GPED was observed from 81% to 95% over the study period. 'Inside/parallel' was the most frequently used model 30% (44/149) in 2017, rising to 49% (78/159) in 2019. The adoption of 'inside/integrated' models fell from 26% (38/149) to 9% (15/159). Capital funding was received by 87% (142/163) of the EDs sampled. We identified no significant difference between the GPED model adopted and observable characteristics of EDs of annual attendance, 4-hour wait, rurality and deprivation within the population served.

CONCLUSION:

The majority of EDs in England have now adopted GPED. The availability of capital funding to finance structural changes so that separate GP services can be provided may explain the rise in parallel models and the decrease in integrated models. Further research is required to understand the relative effectiveness of the various models of GPED identified.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Conducta Cooperativa / Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital / Médicos Generales Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Emerg Med J Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA DE EMERGENCIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Conducta Cooperativa / Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital / Médicos Generales Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Emerg Med J Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA DE EMERGENCIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article