Question design in nurse-led and GP-led telephone triage for same-day appointment requests: a comparative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare doctors' and nurses' communication with patients in primary care telephone triage consultations. DESIGN: Qualitative comparative study of content and form of questions in 51 telephone triage encounters between practitioners (general practitioners (GPs)=29; nurses=22) and patients requesting a same-day appointment in primary care. Audio-recordings of nurse-led calls were synchronised with video recordings of nurse's use of computer decision support software (CDSS) during triage. SETTING: 2 GP practices in Devon and Warwickshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 4 GPs and 29 patients; and 4 nurses and 22 patients requesting a same-day face-to-face appointment with a GP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Form and content of practitioner-initiated questions and patient responses during clinical assessment. RESULTS: A total of 484 question-response sequences were coded (160 GP; 324 N). Despite average call lengths being similar (GP=4 min, 37 s, (SD=1 min, 26 s); N=4 min, 39 s, (SD=2 min, 22 s)), GPs and nurses differed in the average number (GP=5.51, (SD=4.66); N=14.72, (SD=6.42)), content and form of questions asked. A higher frequency of questioning in nurse-led triage was found to be due to nurses' use of CDSS to guide telephone triage. 89% of nurse questions were oriented to asking patients about their reported symptoms or to wider-information gathering, compared to 54% of GP questions. 43% of GP questions involved eliciting patient concerns or expectations, and obtaining details of medical history, compared to 11% of nurse questions. Nurses using CDSS frequently delivered questions designed as declarative statements requesting confirmation and which typically preferred a 'no problem' response. In contrast, GPs asked a higher proportion of interrogative questions designed to request information. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and GPs emphasise different aspects of the clinical assessment process during telephone triage. These different styles of triage have implications for the type of information available following nurse-led or doctor-led triage, and for how patients experience triage.

Does distance matter? Geographical variation in GP out-of-hours service use: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: GP cooperatives are typically based in emergency primary care centres, and patients are frequently required to travel to be seen. Geography is a key determinant of access, but little is known about the extent of geographical variation in the use of out-of-hours services. AIM: To examine the effects of distance and rurality on rates of out-of-hours service use. DESIGN OF STUDY: Geographical analysis based on routinely collected data on telephone calls in June (n=14 482) and December (n=19 747), and area-level data. SETTING: Out-of-hours provider in Devon, England serving nearly 1 million patients. METHOD: Straight-line distance measured patients' proximity to the primary care centre. At area level, rurality was measured by Office for National Statistics Rural and Urban Classification (2004) for output areas, and deprivation by The Index of Multiple Deprivation (2004). RESULTS: Call rates decreased with increasing distance: 172 (95% confidence interval [CI]=170 to 175) for the first (nearest) distance quintile, 162 (95% CI=159 to 165) for the second, and 159 (95% CI=156 to 162) per thousand patients/year for the third quintile. Distance and deprivation predicted call rate. Rates were highest for urban areas and lowest for sparse villages and hamlets. The greatest urban/rural variation was in patients aged 0-4 years. Rates were higher in deprived areas, but the effect of deprivation was more evident in urban than rural areas. CONCLUSION: There is geographical variation in out-of-hours service use. Patients from rural areas have lower call rates, but deprivation appears to be a greater determinant in urban areas. Geographical barriers must be taken into account when planning and delivering services.

Improving access to primary care: eight case studies of introducing Advanced Access in England.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the implementation of 'Advanced Access' as a means of improving access to primary care. METHODS: Qualitative case studies of eight English general practices undertaken as part of a mixed method study. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the interpretation and implementation of Advanced Access. Practices claiming to operate this system often did not follow its key principles. Differences between practice access systems centred on the use of 'same-day' appointments. The association of Advanced Access with same-day appointment systems was problematic as it both created antagonism to, and diverged from, the Advanced Access model. Practice staff did not necessarily share the conceptualisation of demand that underpinned Advanced Access. Other policies and targets provided further incentives to diverge from the model and these factors were compounded by informal organizational behaviours, notably the exercise of discretion, which led to adaptation. CONCLUSION: Advanced Access was diluted because it became confused with same-day appointment systems and other incentives and targets. Its guiding philosophy of 'manageable demand' appeared counter-intuitive to staff in the context of general practice, which made its implementation problematic. As a result, the system was adapted and modified.

Impact of Advanced Access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study.

BACKGROUND: Case studies from the US suggest that Advanced Access appointment systems lead to shorter delays for appointments, reduced workload, and increased continuity of care. AIM: To determine whether implementation of Advanced Access in general practice is associated with the above benefits in the UK. DESIGN OF STUDY: Controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study. SETTING: Twenty-four practices that had implemented Advanced Access and 24 that had not. METHOD: Anonymous telephone calls were made monthly to request an appointment. Numbers of appointments and patients consulting were calculated from practice records. Continuity was determined from anonymised patient records. RESULTS: The wait for an appointment with any doctor was slightly shorter at Advanced Access practices than control practices (mean 1.00 day and 1.87 days respectively, adjusted difference -0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.51 to 0.004 days). Advanced Access practices met the NHS Plan 48-hour access target on 71% of occasions and control practices on 60% of occasions (adjusted odds ratio 1.61; 95% CI = 0.78 to 3.31; P = 0.200). The number of appointments offered, and patients seen, increased at both Advanced Access and control practices over the period studied, with no evidence of differences between them. There was no difference between Advanced Access and control practices in continuity of care (adjusted difference 0.003; 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.07). CONCLUSION: Advanced Access practices provided slightly shorter waits for an appointment compared with control practices, but performance against NHS access targets was considerably poorer than officially reported for both types of practice. Advanced Access practices did not have reduced workload or increased continuity of care.

Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.

BACKGROUND: General practices in England have been encouraged to introduce Advanced Access, but there is no robust evidence that this is associated with improved access in ways that matter to patients. AIM: To compare priorities and experiences of patients consulting in practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access. DESIGN OF STUDY: Patient questionnaire survey. SETTING: Forty-seven practices in 12 primary care trust areas of England. METHOD: Questionnaire administered when patients consulted. RESULTS: Of 12,825 eligible patients, 10,821 (84%) responded. Most (70%) were consulting about a problem they had had for at least 'a few weeks'. Patients obtained their current appointment sooner in Advanced Access practices, but were less likely to have been able to book in advance. They could usually see a doctor more quickly than those in control practices, but were no more satisfied overall with the appointment system. The top priority for patients was to be seen on a day of choice rather than to be seen quickly, but different patient groups had different priorities. Patients in Advanced Access practices were no more or less likely to obtain an appointment that matched their priorities than those in control practices. Patients in both types of practice experienced problems making contact by telephone. CONCLUSION: Patients are seen more quickly in Advanced Access practices, but speed of access is less important to patients than choice of appointment; this may be because most consultations are about long-standing problems. Appointment systems need to be flexible to accommodate the different needs of different patient groups.

Comparing care at walk-in centres and at accident and emergency departments: an exploration of patient choice, preference and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on patient choice, preference and satisfaction. METHODS: A controlled, mixed-method study comparing 8 emergency departments with co-located walk-in centres with the same number of "traditional" emergency departments. This paper focuses on the results of a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of users. RESULTS: Survey data demonstrated that patients were frequently unable to distinguish between being treated at a walk-in centre or at an accident and emergency (A&E) department and, even where this was the case, opportunities to exercise choice about their preferred care provider were often limited. Few made an active choice to attend a co-located walk-in centre. Patients attending walk-in centres were just as likely to be satisfied overall with the care they received as their counterparts who were treated in the co-located A&E facility, although walk-in centre users reported greater satisfaction with some specific aspects of their care and consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas one of the key policy goals underpinning the co-location of walk-in centres next to an A&E department was to provide patients with more options for accessing healthcare and greater choice, leading in turn to increased satisfaction, this evaluation was able to provide little evidence to support this. The high percentage of patients expressing a preference for care in an established emergency department compared with that in a new walk-in centre facility raises questions for future policy development. Further consideration should therefore be given to the role that A&E-focused walk-in centres play in the Department of Health's current policy agenda, as far as patient choice is concerned.

Safety, effectiveness and costs of different models of organising care for critically ill patients: literature review.

New ways of working in critical care are emerging in response to increasing demands for care in the context of a limited critical care workforce. This review appraised the comparative safety, effectiveness and costs of new ways of working in critical care. All papers published in peer reviewed journals during 1990-2003 were utilised. A total of 933 potentially relevant papers were identified. Secondary sources including policy papers, and experts within the field were also used to inform this work. Initially 113 papers met the inclusion criteria. However, 58 of these described policy and secular trends in critical care and were therefore used only to provide background information. A total of 55 papers were then critically reviewed to provide academic focus on the subject area. Examples of comparative empirical research on new ways of working were limited, but the review revealed research activity in the areas of: impact of workload; nursing, medical and organisational factors affecting patient outcomes; and methods to support workforce calculations. The findings suggest that research into longer-term patient outcomes is needed together with a proactive and strategic interdisciplinary approach to practice, policy and research.

A systematic review of evidence about extended roles for allied health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Extending the role of allied health professionals has been promoted as a key component of developing a flexible health workforce. This review aimed to synthesize the evidence about the impact of these roles. METHODS: A systematic review of extended scope of practice in five groups: paramedics, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, and speech and language therapists. The nature and effect of these roles on patients, health professionals and health services were examined. An inclusive approach to searching was used to maximize potential sources of interest including multiple databases, 'grey' literature and subject area experts. An expanded Cochrane Collaboration method was used in view of the anticipated lack of randomized controlled trials and heterogeneity of designs. Papers were only excluded after the search stage for lack of relevance. RESULTS: A total of 355 papers was identified as meeting relevance criteria and 21 studies progressed to full review and data extraction. The primary reason for exclusion from data extraction was that the study included neither qualitative nor quantitative data or because methodological flaws compromised data quality. It was not possible to evaluate any pooled effects as patient health outcomes were rarely considered. CONCLUSIONS: A range of extended practice roles for allied health professionals have been promoted and are being undertaken, but their health outcomes have rarely been evaluated. There is also little evidence as to how best to introduce such roles, or how best to educate, support and mentor these practitioners.

The introduction of integrated out-of-hours arrangements in England: a discrete choice experiment of public preferences for alternative models of care.

OBJECTIVE: To establish which generic attributes of general practice out-of-hours health services are important to the public. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment postal survey conducted in three English general practitioner (GP) co-operatives. A total of 871 individuals aged 20-70 years registered with a GP. Outcomes were preferences for, and trade-offs between: time to making initial contact, time waiting for advice/treatment, informed of expected waiting time, type of contact, professional providing advice, chance contact relieves anxiety, and utility estimates for valuing current models of care. RESULTS: Response rate was 37%. Respondents valued out-of-hours contact for services for reducing anxiety but this was not the only attribute of importance. They had preferences for the way in which services were organized and valued information about expected waiting time, supporting findings from elsewhere. Participants were most willing to make trade-offs between waiting time and professional person. Of the predicted utility for three models of care utility was higher for fully integrated call management. CONCLUSIONS: Greater utility might be achieved if existing services are re-configured more in line with the government's fully integrated call management model. Because the attributes were described in generic terms, the findings can be applied more generally to the plethora of models that exist (and many that might exist in the future). The approach used is important for achieving greater public involvement in how health services develop. Few experiments have elicited public preferences for health services in the UK to date. This study showed valid preferences were expressed but there were problems obtaining representative views from the public.

Effect of introduction of integrated out of hours care in England: observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify service integration achieved in the national exemplar programme for single call access to out of hours care through NHS Direct, and its effect on the wider health system. DESIGN: Observational before and after study of demand, activity, and trends in the use of other health services. PARTICIPANTS: 34 general practice cooperatives with NHS Direct partners (exemplars): four were case exemplars; 10 control cooperatives. SETTING: England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Extent of integration; changes in demand, activity, and trends in emergency ambulance transports; attendances at emergency departments, minor injuries units, and NHS walk-in centres; and emergency admissions to hospital in the first year. RESULTS: Of 31 distinct exemplars, 21 (68%) integrated all out of hours call management. Nine (29%) achieved single call access for all patients. In the only case exemplar where direct comparison was possible, a higher proportion of telephone calls were handled by cooperative nurses before integration than by NHS Direct afterwards (2622/6687 (39%) v 2092/7086 (30%): P < 0.0001). Other case exemplars did not achieve 30%. A small but significant downturn in overall demand for care seen in two case exemplars was also seen in the control cooperatives. The number of emergency ambulance transports increased in three of the four case exemplars after integration, reaching statistical significance in two (5%, -0.02% to 10%, P = 0.06; 6%, 1% to 12%, P = 0.02; 7%, 3% to 12%, P = 0.001). This was always accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of calls to the integrated service. CONCLUSION: Most exemplars achieved integration of call management but not single call access for patients. Most patients made at least two telephone calls to contact NHS Direct, and then waited for a nurse to call back. Evidence for transfer of demand from case exemplars to 999 ambulance services may be amenable to change, but NHS Direct may not have sufficient capacity to support national implementation of the programme.

Preferences of patients for emergency services available during usual GP surgery hours: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: A study was undertaken to investigate patients' strength of preferences for attributes or characteristics associated with delivery of emergency primary care services available during usual GP surgery hours and to investigate the trade-offs between attributes. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used to quantify patients' strength of preferences for several key attributes of usual-hours emergency primary care. The attributes were chosen to reflect the findings of previous research, current policy initiatives and discussions with local key stakeholders. A self-complete questionnaire was administered to NHS Direct callers and adult attenders at Accident and Emergency, GP services and the NHS Walk-in Centre in the locality. Regression analysis was used to estimate the relative importance to patients of the different attributes. RESULTS: An overall response of 71% (n=432) was achieved. All but one of the attributes was a statistically significant predictor of preference. The attribute 'being kept informed about waiting time' was the most important. This was followed by 'quality of the consultation', 'having a consultation with a nurse', 'having a consultation with a doctor' and 'contacting the service in person'. Respondents were prepared to wait an extra 68 min to have a consultation with a doctor, but an extra 2 h 9 min for information about expected waiting time. There were no measurable preference differences between patients surveyed at different NHS entry points. Respondents younger than 45 years held strong preferences with respect to how they wanted to make contact with the system, whereas older respondents appeared not to hold strong preferences, seemingly indifferent between the alternatives. There was weak evidence which showed the younger group more strongly preferred accessing services via an integrated telephone system than making contact in person. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that local solutions for reforming emergency primary care during hours when the GP surgery is open should take account of the strength of patient preferences. The discrete choice method was acceptable, and the results directly informed the development of a local service framework for such care.

Impact of the introduction of fee for service payments on types of minor surgical procedures undertaken by general practitioners: observational study.

The 1990 general practitioners (GPs) contract introduced item of service payment for minor surgery, payable for six categories of procedure. Early review showed no substitution of cheaper procedures for more expensive treatments. Detailed payment data from six Health Authorities for the period 1993-2000 show an 11 per cent increase in claims, largely accounted for by the rise in cautery, incorporating cryotherapy. Cryotherapy is no more effective at treating warts than cheap commercially available products, but is quite profitable for GPs. This is yet another example of item of service payment distorting treatment priorities. The new GP contract, and the initiative to develop GPs with special interests in dermatology and minor surgery, will allow primary care trusts to develop minor surgery undertaken by appropriately skilled and experienced GPs, and which reflects the needs of the population.