“临床不必要”使用急诊和紧急护理的驱动因素:DEUCE混合方法研究

A. O’Cathain, E. Knowles, Jaqui Long, J. Connell, L. Bishop-Edwards, R. Simpson, J. Coster, L. Abouzeid, S. Bennett, E. Croot, J. Dickson, S. Goodacre, E. Hirst, R. Jacques, M. Phillips, J. Turnbull, J. Turner
{"title":"“临床不必要”使用急诊和紧急护理的驱动因素:DEUCE混合方法研究","authors":"A. O’Cathain, E. Knowles, Jaqui Long, J. Connell, L. Bishop-Edwards, R. Simpson, J. Coster, L. Abouzeid, S. Bennett, E. Croot, J. Dickson, S. Goodacre, E. Hirst, R. Jacques, M. Phillips, J. Turnbull, J. Turner","doi":"10.3310/hsdr08150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background \nThere is widespread concern about the pressure on emergency and urgent services in the UK, particularly emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments. A mismatch between supply and demand has led to interest in what can be termed ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of services. This is defined by the research team in this study as ‘patients attending services with problems that are classified as suitable for treatment by a lower urgency service or self-care’. This is a challenging issue to consider because patients may face difficulties when deciding the best action to take, and different staff may make different judgements about what constitutes a legitimate reason for service use. \n \nObjectives \nTo identify the drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments from patient and population perspectives. \n \nDesign \nThis was a sequential mixed-methods study with three components: a realist review; qualitative interviews (n = 48) and focus groups (n = 3) with patients considered ‘clinically unnecessary’ users of these services, focusing on parents of young children, young adults and people in areas of social deprivation; and a population survey (n = 2906) to explore attitudes towards seeking care for unexpected, non-life-threatening health problems and to identify the characteristics of someone with a tendency for ‘clinically unnecessary’ help-seeking. \n \nResults \nFrom the results of the three study components, we found that multiple, interacting drivers influenced individuals’ decision-making. Drivers could be grouped into symptom related, patient related and health service related. Symptom-related drivers were anxiety or need for reassurance, which were caused by uncertainty about the meaning or seriousness of symptoms; concern about the impact of symptoms on daily activities/functioning; and a need for immediate relief of intolerable symptoms, particularly pain. Patient-related drivers were reduced coping capacity as a result of illness, stress or limited resources; fear of consequences when responsible for another person’s health, particularly a child; and the influence of social networks. Health service-related drivers were perceptions or previous experiences of services, particularly the attractions of emergency departments; a lack of timely access to an appropriate general practitioner appointment; and compliance with health service staff’s advice. \n \nLimitations \nDifficulty recruiting patients who had used the ambulance service to the interviews and focus groups meant that we were not able to add as much as we had anticipated to the limited evidence base regarding this service. \n \nConclusions \nPatients use emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments when they may not need the level of clinical care provided by these services for a multitude of inter-related reasons that sometimes differ by population subgroup. Some of these reasons relate to health services, in terms of difficulty accessing general practice leading to use of emergency departments, and to population-learnt behaviour concerning the positive attributes of emergency departments, rather than to patient characteristics. Social circumstances, such as complex and stressful lives, influence help-seeking for all three services. Demand may be ‘clinically unnecessary’ but completely understandable when service accessibility and patients’ social circumstances are considered. \n \nFuture work \nThere is a need to evaluate interventions, including changing service configuration, strengthening general practice and addressing the stressors that have an impact on people’s coping capacity. Different subgroups may require different interventions. \n \nStudy registration \nThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017056273. \n \nFunding \nThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency and urgent care: the DEUCE mixed-methods study\",\"authors\":\"A. O’Cathain, E. Knowles, Jaqui Long, J. Connell, L. Bishop-Edwards, R. Simpson, J. Coster, L. Abouzeid, S. Bennett, E. Croot, J. Dickson, S. Goodacre, E. Hirst, R. Jacques, M. Phillips, J. Turnbull, J. Turner\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/hsdr08150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background \\nThere is widespread concern about the pressure on emergency and urgent services in the UK, particularly emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments. A mismatch between supply and demand has led to interest in what can be termed ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of services. This is defined by the research team in this study as ‘patients attending services with problems that are classified as suitable for treatment by a lower urgency service or self-care’. This is a challenging issue to consider because patients may face difficulties when deciding the best action to take, and different staff may make different judgements about what constitutes a legitimate reason for service use. \\n \\nObjectives \\nTo identify the drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments from patient and population perspectives. \\n \\nDesign \\nThis was a sequential mixed-methods study with three components: a realist review; qualitative interviews (n = 48) and focus groups (n = 3) with patients considered ‘clinically unnecessary’ users of these services, focusing on parents of young children, young adults and people in areas of social deprivation; and a population survey (n = 2906) to explore attitudes towards seeking care for unexpected, non-life-threatening health problems and to identify the characteristics of someone with a tendency for ‘clinically unnecessary’ help-seeking. \\n \\nResults \\nFrom the results of the three study components, we found that multiple, interacting drivers influenced individuals’ decision-making. Drivers could be grouped into symptom related, patient related and health service related. Symptom-related drivers were anxiety or need for reassurance, which were caused by uncertainty about the meaning or seriousness of symptoms; concern about the impact of symptoms on daily activities/functioning; and a need for immediate relief of intolerable symptoms, particularly pain. Patient-related drivers were reduced coping capacity as a result of illness, stress or limited resources; fear of consequences when responsible for another person’s health, particularly a child; and the influence of social networks. Health service-related drivers were perceptions or previous experiences of services, particularly the attractions of emergency departments; a lack of timely access to an appropriate general practitioner appointment; and compliance with health service staff’s advice. \\n \\nLimitations \\nDifficulty recruiting patients who had used the ambulance service to the interviews and focus groups meant that we were not able to add as much as we had anticipated to the limited evidence base regarding this service. \\n \\nConclusions \\nPatients use emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments when they may not need the level of clinical care provided by these services for a multitude of inter-related reasons that sometimes differ by population subgroup. Some of these reasons relate to health services, in terms of difficulty accessing general practice leading to use of emergency departments, and to population-learnt behaviour concerning the positive attributes of emergency departments, rather than to patient characteristics. Social circumstances, such as complex and stressful lives, influence help-seeking for all three services. Demand may be ‘clinically unnecessary’ but completely understandable when service accessibility and patients’ social circumstances are considered. \\n \\nFuture work \\nThere is a need to evaluate interventions, including changing service configuration, strengthening general practice and addressing the stressors that have an impact on people’s coping capacity. Different subgroups may require different interventions. \\n \\nStudy registration \\nThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017056273. \\n \\nFunding \\nThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1-256\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景人们普遍担心英国的急救和紧急服务面临的压力,特别是急救救护车、急诊科和当天全科医生预约。供需不匹配导致人们对所谓的“临床上不必要”的服务使用产生了兴趣。这项研究中的研究团队将其定义为“接受服务的患者,其问题被归类为适合通过较低紧急程度的服务或自我护理进行治疗”。这是一个需要考虑的具有挑战性的问题,因为患者在决定采取最佳行动时可能会遇到困难,不同的工作人员可能会对使用服务的合法理由做出不同的判断。目的从患者和人群的角度确定“临床上不必要”使用急救救护车、急诊科和当天全科医生预约的驱动因素。设计这是一项由三个部分组成的顺序混合方法研究:现实主义综述;定性访谈(n = 48)和焦点组(n = 3) 患者被认为是这些服务的“临床上不必要的”用户,重点关注幼儿的父母、年轻人和社会贫困地区的人;以及一项人口调查(n = 2906),以探讨对意外、无生命危险的健康问题寻求护理的态度,并确定有“临床上不必要”求助倾向的人的特征。结果从三个研究组成部分的结果来看,我们发现多个相互作用的驱动因素会影响个人的决策。驱动因素可以分为与症状相关、与患者相关和与医疗服务相关。症状相关的驱动因素是焦虑或需要安慰,这是由对症状的含义或严重性的不确定性引起的;关注症状对日常活动/功能的影响;以及需要立即缓解无法忍受的症状,特别是疼痛。由于疾病、压力或资源有限,与患者相关的驱动因素的应对能力降低;对他人,尤其是儿童的健康负责时的后果的恐惧;以及社交网络的影响。与卫生服务相关的驱动因素是对服务的看法或以前的经历,特别是急诊部门的吸引力;未能及时获得适当的全科医生预约;以及遵守卫生服务人员的建议。限制难以招募使用过救护车服务的患者参加访谈和焦点小组,这意味着我们无法在有关这项服务的有限证据基础上增加我们预期的那么多。结论当患者由于多种相互关联的原因可能不需要这些服务提供的临床护理水平时,他们会使用急救救护车、急诊科和当天的全科医生预约,这些原因有时因人群亚组而异。其中一些原因与卫生服务有关,包括难以获得导致使用急诊科的全科医学,以及与急诊科积极属性有关的人群习得行为,而不是与患者特征有关。复杂而紧张的生活等社会环境会影响这三种服务的求助。当考虑到服务的可及性和患者的社会环境时,需求可能是“临床上不必要的”,但完全可以理解。未来的工作有必要评估干预措施,包括改变服务配置、加强全科实践和解决影响人们应对能力的压力源。不同的亚组可能需要不同的干预措施。研究注册本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42017056273。资助该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务与交付研究》上全文发表;第8卷第15期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency and urgent care: the DEUCE mixed-methods study
Background There is widespread concern about the pressure on emergency and urgent services in the UK, particularly emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments. A mismatch between supply and demand has led to interest in what can be termed ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of services. This is defined by the research team in this study as ‘patients attending services with problems that are classified as suitable for treatment by a lower urgency service or self-care’. This is a challenging issue to consider because patients may face difficulties when deciding the best action to take, and different staff may make different judgements about what constitutes a legitimate reason for service use. Objectives To identify the drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments from patient and population perspectives. Design This was a sequential mixed-methods study with three components: a realist review; qualitative interviews (n = 48) and focus groups (n = 3) with patients considered ‘clinically unnecessary’ users of these services, focusing on parents of young children, young adults and people in areas of social deprivation; and a population survey (n = 2906) to explore attitudes towards seeking care for unexpected, non-life-threatening health problems and to identify the characteristics of someone with a tendency for ‘clinically unnecessary’ help-seeking. Results From the results of the three study components, we found that multiple, interacting drivers influenced individuals’ decision-making. Drivers could be grouped into symptom related, patient related and health service related. Symptom-related drivers were anxiety or need for reassurance, which were caused by uncertainty about the meaning or seriousness of symptoms; concern about the impact of symptoms on daily activities/functioning; and a need for immediate relief of intolerable symptoms, particularly pain. Patient-related drivers were reduced coping capacity as a result of illness, stress or limited resources; fear of consequences when responsible for another person’s health, particularly a child; and the influence of social networks. Health service-related drivers were perceptions or previous experiences of services, particularly the attractions of emergency departments; a lack of timely access to an appropriate general practitioner appointment; and compliance with health service staff’s advice. Limitations Difficulty recruiting patients who had used the ambulance service to the interviews and focus groups meant that we were not able to add as much as we had anticipated to the limited evidence base regarding this service. Conclusions Patients use emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments when they may not need the level of clinical care provided by these services for a multitude of inter-related reasons that sometimes differ by population subgroup. Some of these reasons relate to health services, in terms of difficulty accessing general practice leading to use of emergency departments, and to population-learnt behaviour concerning the positive attributes of emergency departments, rather than to patient characteristics. Social circumstances, such as complex and stressful lives, influence help-seeking for all three services. Demand may be ‘clinically unnecessary’ but completely understandable when service accessibility and patients’ social circumstances are considered. Future work There is a need to evaluate interventions, including changing service configuration, strengthening general practice and addressing the stressors that have an impact on people’s coping capacity. Different subgroups may require different interventions. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017056273. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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