保健专业人员对爱尔兰急诊科就诊率“适当性”的共识。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Conor Prendergast, John Ryan, Louise A Barry, Rose Galvin, Niamh M Cummins
{"title":"保健专业人员对爱尔兰急诊科就诊率“适当性”的共识。","authors":"Conor Prendergast, John Ryan, Louise A Barry, Rose Galvin, Niamh M Cummins","doi":"10.1007/s11845-025-03961-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-urgent care attendances to the emergency department (ED) increase the strain on this sector. Identification of patients who may benefit from appropriate alternative care pathways may serve to lessen ED crowding. However, healthcare professionals from different specialties may differ in their opinion of what is an appropriate use of ED services.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The study aims to establish the consensus between healthcare professionals, from different specialties, on the appropriateness of attendances to an Irish ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single centre, cross-sectional study. Data were compiled in anonymised patient summary files (n = 77) from adults attending the ED over 24 h period. These summary files were reviewed by five different healthcare professionals; an emergency medicine consultant (EMC), an emergency medicine specialist registrar (EM SpR), an ED clinical nurse manager (CMN), an advanced paramedic (AP) and a general practitioner (GP). The clinicians were asked if the patient could have been managed by GP the same day or next day, if the patient's ED visit was an inappropriate use of ED resources and to rank on a scale of 0-10 how appropriate the ED visit was.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement on management by GP in 24-48 h was 56% and ranged from 30% (CMN) to 40% (EMC). For inappropriate use of ED resources, consensus was 58% and ranged from 12% (GP) to 35% (EMC). Median \"appropriateness\" rating ranged from 6 (EM SpR) to 8 (AP and CMN). When the \"appropriateness\" scale was trichotomized, the \"inappropriate\" attendances ranged from 1% (CMN) to 21% (EM SpR), whilst \"appropriate\" attendances ranged from 47% (EM SpR) to CMN (78%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite agreement that there was \"inappropriate\" use of ED services, healthcare professionals from different backgrounds did not reach a general consensus on which attendances were inappropriate. Therefore, expectations regarding patients' ability to self-assess illness or injury severity related to ED attendances may not be reasonable.</p>","PeriodicalId":14507,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consensus between healthcare professionals on the \\\"appropriateness\\\" of attendances in an Irish emergency department.\",\"authors\":\"Conor Prendergast, John Ryan, Louise A Barry, Rose Galvin, Niamh M Cummins\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11845-025-03961-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-urgent care attendances to the emergency department (ED) increase the strain on this sector. Identification of patients who may benefit from appropriate alternative care pathways may serve to lessen ED crowding. However, healthcare professionals from different specialties may differ in their opinion of what is an appropriate use of ED services.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The study aims to establish the consensus between healthcare professionals, from different specialties, on the appropriateness of attendances to an Irish ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single centre, cross-sectional study. Data were compiled in anonymised patient summary files (n = 77) from adults attending the ED over 24 h period. These summary files were reviewed by five different healthcare professionals; an emergency medicine consultant (EMC), an emergency medicine specialist registrar (EM SpR), an ED clinical nurse manager (CMN), an advanced paramedic (AP) and a general practitioner (GP). The clinicians were asked if the patient could have been managed by GP the same day or next day, if the patient's ED visit was an inappropriate use of ED resources and to rank on a scale of 0-10 how appropriate the ED visit was.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater agreement on management by GP in 24-48 h was 56% and ranged from 30% (CMN) to 40% (EMC). For inappropriate use of ED resources, consensus was 58% and ranged from 12% (GP) to 35% (EMC). Median \\\"appropriateness\\\" rating ranged from 6 (EM SpR) to 8 (AP and CMN). When the \\\"appropriateness\\\" scale was trichotomized, the \\\"inappropriate\\\" attendances ranged from 1% (CMN) to 21% (EM SpR), whilst \\\"appropriate\\\" attendances ranged from 47% (EM SpR) to CMN (78%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite agreement that there was \\\"inappropriate\\\" use of ED services, healthcare professionals from different backgrounds did not reach a general consensus on which attendances were inappropriate. Therefore, expectations regarding patients' ability to self-assess illness or injury severity related to ED attendances may not be reasonable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irish Journal of Medical Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irish Journal of Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-03961-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-03961-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:非紧急护理出席的急诊科(ED)增加了对这一部门的压力。识别可能从适当的替代护理途径中受益的患者可能有助于减少ED拥挤。然而,来自不同专业的医疗保健专业人员可能对什么是适当使用急诊科服务有不同的看法。目的:本研究旨在建立来自不同专业的医疗保健专业人员对爱尔兰ed就诊的适当性的共识。方法:这是一项单中心横断面研究。数据汇编在24小时内在急诊室就诊的成年人的匿名患者摘要文件中(n = 77)。这些摘要文件由五位不同的医疗保健专业人员审查;一名急诊医学顾问(EMC)、一名急诊医学专科注册医师(EM SpR)、一名急诊科临床护士经理(CMN)、一名高级护理人员(AP)和一名全科医生(GP)。临床医生被问及患者是否可以在当天或第二天接受全科医生的治疗,如果患者的急诊科就诊是对急诊科资源的不适当使用,并在0-10的范围内对急诊科就诊的适当程度进行排名。结果:在24-48 h内GP管理的评分一致性为56%,CMN组为30%,EMC组为40%。对于ED资源的不当使用,共识率为58%,范围从12% (GP)到35% (EMC)。“适当性”评分中位数从6 (EM SpR)到8 (AP和CMN)不等。当“适当性”量表被三分化时,“不适当”出勤率从1% (CMN)到21% (EM SpR),而“适当”出勤率从47% (EM SpR)到CMN(78%)。结论:尽管不同背景的医护人员一致认为存在“不适当”使用急诊科服务的情况,但对于哪些就诊是不适当的,并没有达成普遍共识。因此,期望患者自我评估与急诊科就诊相关的疾病或损伤严重程度的能力可能是不合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consensus between healthcare professionals on the "appropriateness" of attendances in an Irish emergency department.

Background: Non-urgent care attendances to the emergency department (ED) increase the strain on this sector. Identification of patients who may benefit from appropriate alternative care pathways may serve to lessen ED crowding. However, healthcare professionals from different specialties may differ in their opinion of what is an appropriate use of ED services.

Aim: The study aims to establish the consensus between healthcare professionals, from different specialties, on the appropriateness of attendances to an Irish ED.

Methods: This was a single centre, cross-sectional study. Data were compiled in anonymised patient summary files (n = 77) from adults attending the ED over 24 h period. These summary files were reviewed by five different healthcare professionals; an emergency medicine consultant (EMC), an emergency medicine specialist registrar (EM SpR), an ED clinical nurse manager (CMN), an advanced paramedic (AP) and a general practitioner (GP). The clinicians were asked if the patient could have been managed by GP the same day or next day, if the patient's ED visit was an inappropriate use of ED resources and to rank on a scale of 0-10 how appropriate the ED visit was.

Results: Inter-rater agreement on management by GP in 24-48 h was 56% and ranged from 30% (CMN) to 40% (EMC). For inappropriate use of ED resources, consensus was 58% and ranged from 12% (GP) to 35% (EMC). Median "appropriateness" rating ranged from 6 (EM SpR) to 8 (AP and CMN). When the "appropriateness" scale was trichotomized, the "inappropriate" attendances ranged from 1% (CMN) to 21% (EM SpR), whilst "appropriate" attendances ranged from 47% (EM SpR) to CMN (78%).

Conclusion: Despite agreement that there was "inappropriate" use of ED services, healthcare professionals from different backgrounds did not reach a general consensus on which attendances were inappropriate. Therefore, expectations regarding patients' ability to self-assess illness or injury severity related to ED attendances may not be reasonable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Irish Journal of Medical Science
Irish Journal of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the official organ of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. Established in 1832, this quarterly journal is a contribution to medical science and an ideal forum for the younger medical/scientific professional to enter world literature and an ideal launching platform now, as in the past, for many a young research worker. The primary role of both the Academy and IJMS is that of providing a forum for the exchange of scientific information and to promote academic discussion, so essential to scientific progress.
×
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