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.

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