Clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedics working in general practice: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Matthew Booker, Sarah Voss, Nicky Harris, William Hollingworth, Nouf Jeynes, Hazel Taylor, Kirsty Garfield, Helen Baxter, Jonathan Benger, Andy Gibson, Trudy Goodenough, Justin Jagosh, Kim Kirby, Cathy Liddiard, Alyesha Proctor, Sarah Purdy, Behnaz Schofield, Hannah Stott, Grace Scrimgeour, Nicola Walsh
{"title":"Clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedics working in general practice: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.","authors":"Matthew Booker, Sarah Voss, Nicky Harris, William Hollingworth, Nouf Jeynes, Hazel Taylor, Kirsty Garfield, Helen Baxter, Jonathan Benger, Andy Gibson, Trudy Goodenough, Justin Jagosh, Kim Kirby, Cathy Liddiard, Alyesha Proctor, Sarah Purdy, Behnaz Schofield, Hannah Stott, Grace Scrimgeour, Nicola Walsh","doi":"10.3310/GTJJ3104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practice services are under pressure due increased demand. Alongside substantial national recruitment challenges, there exists a shortage of general practitioners to meet current need. Resultingly, allied healthcare professionals, including paramedics, are being utilised in general practice.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the models of paramedics in general practice settings; the mechanisms that underpin effective paramedics in general practice; and the impact of paramedics in general practice on safety, costs and clinical and patient-reported outcomes and experience.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods realist evaluation comprised a rapid realist review followed by an evaluation of paramedics in general practice in general practice case study sites. Patient and public involvement and input was integral, ensuring validity from a patient and carer perspective.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>General practices in England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 34 general practices participated as case study sites, of which 25 were 'paramedics in general practice' sites. Data from qualitative realist interviews (<i>n</i> = 69), quantitative questionnaires (<i>n</i> = 489) and electronic records (<i>n</i> = 22,509 consultations) were collected.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Paramedics in general practice models were classified according to: (1) level of integration of the paramedic to the general practice team; and (2) complexity of patients seen by paramedics.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Qualitative interviews investigated initial programme theories with staff and patient participants. Patient participant questionnaires utilised validated measures: the Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (safety); EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (health-related quality of life); Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire; the Modular Resource Use Measure (health and care resource utilisation). Electronic health records provided data on primary care use.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>A rapid realist review of the published and grey literature, supplemented with direct enquiry with system leaders and key stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rapid realist review highlighted significant variation in paramedics' roles in general practice. Qualitative interviews identified domains related to access, safety, workforce reconfiguration, infrastructure, patient experience, and outcomes. Lower Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care practice activation scores were found at paramedics in general practice sites (perceived less engaged in promoting safety), in particular those with medium and low levels of paramedics in general practice integration and complexity. There was a small statistically significant difference in the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire 'Confidence in Health Plan' by paramedics in general practice complexity, such that confidence had deteriorated slightly more in the high-complexity group compared to non-paramedics in general practice. Paramedics in general practice sites had lower scores at initial visit and 30 days for the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire 'Confidence in Health Provision'. We found little evidence that paramedics in general practice care led to substantial spillover effects via increased reconsultations, prescriptions, secondary care referrals or unplanned hospital admission costs.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The study faced challenges in recruitment. Self-selected participating sites may not be representative of all general practitioners in England, and categorising paramedics in general practice models for analysis was more complex than anticipated. The comparison of costs and outcomes between paramedics in general practice and non-paramedics in general practice sites was based on an observational study design.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Paramedics in general practice care improves access to general practice. Safety and acceptability require resources for induction, supervision, training and education. Paramedics in general practice integration affects staff satisfaction and role longevity. Paramedics in general practice allows paramedics to develop and evolve.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Larger studies utilising different study designs with longer follow-up are needed to fully understand the impact of paramedics in general practice on clinical outcomes and episode of care costs.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as ISRCTN56909665 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN56909665.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132736) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 6","pages":"1-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GTJJ3104","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

Background: General practice services are under pressure due increased demand. Alongside substantial national recruitment challenges, there exists a shortage of general practitioners to meet current need. Resultingly, allied healthcare professionals, including paramedics, are being utilised in general practice.

Aim: To determine the models of paramedics in general practice settings; the mechanisms that underpin effective paramedics in general practice; and the impact of paramedics in general practice on safety, costs and clinical and patient-reported outcomes and experience.

Design: A mixed-methods realist evaluation comprised a rapid realist review followed by an evaluation of paramedics in general practice in general practice case study sites. Patient and public involvement and input was integral, ensuring validity from a patient and carer perspective.

Setting: General practices in England.

Participants: A total of 34 general practices participated as case study sites, of which 25 were 'paramedics in general practice' sites. Data from qualitative realist interviews (n = 69), quantitative questionnaires (n = 489) and electronic records (n = 22,509 consultations) were collected.

Interventions: Paramedics in general practice models were classified according to: (1) level of integration of the paramedic to the general practice team; and (2) complexity of patients seen by paramedics.

Main outcome measures: Qualitative interviews investigated initial programme theories with staff and patient participants. Patient participant questionnaires utilised validated measures: the Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (safety); EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (health-related quality of life); Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire; the Modular Resource Use Measure (health and care resource utilisation). Electronic health records provided data on primary care use.

Review methods: A rapid realist review of the published and grey literature, supplemented with direct enquiry with system leaders and key stakeholders.

Results: The rapid realist review highlighted significant variation in paramedics' roles in general practice. Qualitative interviews identified domains related to access, safety, workforce reconfiguration, infrastructure, patient experience, and outcomes. Lower Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care practice activation scores were found at paramedics in general practice sites (perceived less engaged in promoting safety), in particular those with medium and low levels of paramedics in general practice integration and complexity. There was a small statistically significant difference in the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire 'Confidence in Health Plan' by paramedics in general practice complexity, such that confidence had deteriorated slightly more in the high-complexity group compared to non-paramedics in general practice. Paramedics in general practice sites had lower scores at initial visit and 30 days for the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire 'Confidence in Health Provision'. We found little evidence that paramedics in general practice care led to substantial spillover effects via increased reconsultations, prescriptions, secondary care referrals or unplanned hospital admission costs.

Limitations: The study faced challenges in recruitment. Self-selected participating sites may not be representative of all general practitioners in England, and categorising paramedics in general practice models for analysis was more complex than anticipated. The comparison of costs and outcomes between paramedics in general practice and non-paramedics in general practice sites was based on an observational study design.

Conclusions: Paramedics in general practice care improves access to general practice. Safety and acceptability require resources for induction, supervision, training and education. Paramedics in general practice integration affects staff satisfaction and role longevity. Paramedics in general practice allows paramedics to develop and evolve.

Future work: Larger studies utilising different study designs with longer follow-up are needed to fully understand the impact of paramedics in general practice on clinical outcomes and episode of care costs.

Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN56909665 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN56909665.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132736) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 13, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

护理人员在全科实践中的临床和成本效益:混合方法现实主义评估。
背景:由于需求增加,全科医疗服务面临压力。除了大量的国家招聘挑战外,还存在全科医生短缺,无法满足当前的需求。因此,联合医疗保健专业人员,包括护理人员,被用于一般实践。目的:确定全科护理人员的模式;在全科实践中支持有效护理人员的机制;以及护理人员在一般实践中对安全性、成本、临床和患者报告的结果和经验的影响。设计:混合方法现实评估包括快速现实评估,随后对全科实践中的护理人员在全科实践案例研究地点进行评估。患者和公众的参与和投入是不可或缺的,从患者和护理人员的角度确保了有效性。背景:英国的普通诊所。参与者:共有34个全科诊所作为案例研究站点参与,其中25个是“全科诊所护理人员”站点。收集了来自定性现实主义访谈(n = 69)、定量问卷(n = 489)和电子记录(n = 22,509次咨询)的数据。干预措施:全科医疗模式的护理人员按:(1)护理人员与全科医疗团队的融合程度进行分类;(2)护理人员所见病人的复杂性。主要结果测量:定性访谈调查了最初的方案理论与工作人员和患者参与者。患者参与问卷采用有效的措施:患者报告的经验和结果的安全在初级保健(安全);EuroQol-5维度,五级版本(健康相关生活质量);初级保健结局问卷;模块化资源利用措施(保健和护理资源利用)。电子健康记录提供了关于初级保健使用情况的数据。审查方法:对已发表的文献和灰色文献进行快速现实的审查,并与系统领导者和关键利益相关者进行直接调查。结果:快速现实主义回顾突出了护理人员在全科实践中的作用的显著差异。定性访谈确定了与访问、安全、劳动力重组、基础设施、患者体验和结果相关的领域。在全科诊所的护理人员中,患者报告的初级保健实践安全体验和结果激活分数较低(被认为不太参与促进安全),特别是那些在全科实践整合和复杂性方面具有中低水平护理人员的地方。在初级保健结果问卷中,护理人员对健康计划的信心在全科实践的复杂性上有统计学上的显着差异,因此,与非全科实践护理人员相比,高复杂性组的信心稍微恶化。全科诊所的护理人员在初次就诊和30天的初级保健结果问卷“健康提供的信心”中得分较低。我们发现很少有证据表明,全科护理护理人员通过增加复诊、处方、二级护理转诊或计划外住院费用,导致了实质性的溢出效应。局限性:本研究在招募方面面临挑战。自行选择的参与地点可能不能代表英格兰所有的全科医生,并且在全科医生模型中对护理人员进行分类分析比预期的要复杂得多。全科护理人员和非全科护理人员的成本和结果比较基于观察性研究设计。结论:全科护理护理人员提高了全科护理的可及性。安全性和可接受性需要资源来引导、监督、培训和教育。全科护理人员整合影响员工满意度和角色寿命。一般护理实践允许护理人员发展和演变。未来的工作:需要更大规模的研究,采用不同的研究设计和更长时间的随访,以充分了解护理人员在一般实践中对临床结果和护理费用的影响。研究注册:本研究注册号为ISRCTN56909665 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN56909665.Funding:该奖项由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会保健提供研究计划(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR132736)资助,全文发表在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上;第13卷第6期有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信