Primary care clinicians working in or near hospital emergency departments in the UK: A mixed methods systematic review

Stephanie Howard Wilsher, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Sarah Hanson, Duncan Peacock, Paul Everden
{"title":"Primary care clinicians working in or near hospital emergency departments in the UK: A mixed methods systematic review","authors":"Stephanie Howard Wilsher, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Sarah Hanson, Duncan Peacock, Paul Everden","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.19.24312212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.\nMethods: 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.\nResults: 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.","PeriodicalId":501556,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.19.24312212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
在英国医院急诊室内或附近工作的初级保健临床医生:混合方法系统回顾
目的:综合英国初级保健临床医生在医院急诊室或邻近急诊室治疗患者的相关证据。研究设计:混合方法叙述性系统综述:符合条件的研究均为英文,并描述了在医院急诊科(ED)内或邻近地区为患者提供治疗的初级医疗服务(全科医生、GP 或执业护士)。在 Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 CINAHL 数据库中进行了检索。检索包括从 2020 年至 2022 年 10 月更新的国际综述中提取的资料,以及从开始到 2022 年 10 月的灰色文献。检索方法参考了公众意见:从筛选出的 4189 项研究中,有 20 项符合纳入标准。四项研究对服务的类型和分流进行了评估。七项研究报告了患者和公众的参与情况。有 10 项研究报告了初级医疗服务和急诊服务在临床结果上的差异,但并不能确定其中任何一种服务都能带来益处。同样,经济评估结果也不明确。不同的服务形式使评估变得更加复杂,这也解释了为什么临床医生对此类服务的效用看法不一。无论是初级医疗服务还是急诊服务,患者普遍对所接受的服务感到满意。结论实施方式的多样性使得可以得出的结论变得复杂。现有的评估没有提供多少证据表明,在急诊室或急诊室附近提供的初级医疗服务在临床效果或成本节约方面具有任何系统优势。未来评估中的过程评估对于了解急诊科初级医疗服务的哪些方面有可能改善系统和患者护理至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信