RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Primary care clinicians working in or near hospital emergency departments in the UK: A mixed methods systematic review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.08.19.24312212
DO 10.1101/2024.08.19.24312212
A1 Wilsher, Stephanie Howard
A1 Brainard, Julii
A1 Hanson, Sarah
A1 Peacock, Duncan
A1 Everden, Paul
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/20/2024.08.19.24312212.abstract
AB Objectives To synthesise evidence about primary care clinicians treating patients in or adjacent to hospital emergency departments in the UK.Study design Mixed methods narrative systematic review.Methods Eligible studies were in English and described primary care services (general practitioners, GPs, or nurse practitioners) that treat patients within or adjacent to hospital Emergency Departments (ED). Searches were conducted on Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases. The search included extraction from an international review updated from 2020 to October 2022, and grey literature from inception to October 2022. The methods were informed by consultation with members of the public.Results From 4189 studies screened, 20 met inclusion criteria. Four studies assessed typology and streaming of services. Seven studies reported patient and public involvement. Ten studies reported differences in clinical outcomes between primary care and emergency services, but not definitive benefit for either. Likewise, results were equivocal for economic evaluations. Diverse delivery formats complicate evaluation and may explain why clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of such services. Patients were generally satisfied with the service they received, in either primary care or emergency services.Conclusion Diversity of implementation complicate conclusions that can be drawn. Existing evaluations provide little evidence that primary care services in or near emergency departments offers any system advantages for clinical outcomes, or cost savings. Process evaluation in future evaluations is essential to understand what aspects of primary care at emergency departments are likely to improve system and patient care.Implications for the profession and/or patient care The systematic review assessed outcomes arising due to primary care clinicians providing treatment in or near Emergency Departments (ED) in the UK. There were no consistent benefits for having primary care clinicians in or near EDs. This research highlights the need for healthcare leaders and policy makers to provide more clarity in developing primary care services in or near EDs. It will have impact for leaders in healthcare to consider whether primary care clinicians in or near EDs are providing ‘best value’ healthcare, or whether other models could provide patients appropriate NHS resources according to their health need.Patient and public involvement Three focus groups (with 13 public advisors) were conducted to understand patients’ priorities and perspectives for attending EDs with relatively minor health conditions. This helped to guide study design, data extraction and analysis of this review.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementUniversity of East Anglia Health and Social Care Partners Research Capacity Building Programme Funding Call 2022-23. Dr. Brainard is affiliated to the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at Kings College London in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UK HSA) and collaboration with the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the UEA-HSCP, NHS, NIHR, UEA, UK Department of Health or HSA.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee at UEA guidelines are that this work does not require ethical approval because the analysis is on published aggregate and anonymised data in the public domain.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors