Cost effects of nurse led triage at an emergency department with the advice to consult the adjacent general practice cooperative for low-risk patients, a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: During the TRIAGE trial, emergency nurses diverted 13.3% of patients with low-risk complaints from a Belgian emergency department (ED) to the adjacent general practitioner cooperative (GPC). We examined the effects of this diversion on the total cost, insurance costs and patient costs, as charged on the invoice. Changes in the cost composition and the direct impact on revenues of both locations were examined as a secondary objective. METHODS: The differences in costs between intervention and control weekends were tested with two-sample t-tests and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests. For the main outcomes an additional generalised linear model was created. Proportions of patients charged with certain costs were examined using Pearson's chi-square tests. Average revenues per weekend were compared using pooled t-tests. RESULTS: During intervention weekends, total costs increased by 3% (€3.3). The costs decreased by 8% (€2.2) for patients and increased by 6% (€5.5) for insurance, mainly driven by differences in physician fees. More patients were charged a consultation fee only (25% vs. 19%, p-value<0.01). The GPC's revenues increased by 13% (p-value=0.06); no change was found for the ED's revenues. CONCLUSION: The intervention reduced costs slightly for patients, while total costs and insurance costs slightly increased. When implementing triage systems with primary care involvement, the effects on the costs and revenues of the stakeholders should be monitored.

Differences in emergency nurse triage between a simulated setting and the real world, post hoc analysis of a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: In the TRIAGE trial, a cluster randomised trial about diverting emergency department (ED) patients to a general practice cooperative (GPC) using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System, the difference in the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC was striking: 13.3% in the intervention group (patients were encouraged to comply to an ED or GPC assignment, real-world setting) and 24.7% in the control group (the assignment was not communicated, all remained at the ED, simulated setting). In this secondary analysis, we assess the differences in the use of the triage tool between intervention and control group and differences in costs and hospitalisations for patients assigned to the GPC. SETTING: ED of a general hospital and the adjacent GPC. PARTICIPANTS: 8038 patients (6294 intervention and 1744 control).Primary and secondary outcome measures proportion of patients with triage parameters (reason for encounter, discriminator and urgency category) leading to an assignment to the ED, proportion of patients for which the computer-generated GPC assignment was overruled, motivations for choosing certain parameters, costs (invoices) and hospitalisations. RESULTS: An additional 3.1% (p<0.01) of the patients in the intervention group were classified as urgent. Discriminators leading to the ED were registered for an additional 16.2% (p<0.01), mainly because of a perceived need for imaging. Nurses equally chose flow charts leading to the ED (p=0.41) and equally overruled the protocol (p=0.91). In the intervention group, the mean cost for patients assigned to the GPC was €23 (p<0.01) lower and less patients with an assignment to the GPC were hospitalised (1.0% vs 1.6%, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Nurses used a triage tool more risk averse when it was used to divert patients to primary care as compared with a theoretical assignment to primary care. Outcomes from a simulated setting should not be extrapolated to real patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03793972.

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE-trial): A process evaluation of medical staff experiences in a nurse-led triage system.

AIMS: This process evaluation aims at identifying the facilitators and inhibitors that influenced the successful uptake of a nurse-led triage system streaming low-risk patients from an emergency department (ED) to the general practitioner (GP). DESIGN & METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with ED nurses (n = 12), ED doctors (n = 6) from the ED of a Belgian general hospital and GPs (n = 5) affiliated with the adjacent GP cooperative (GPC). The process evaluation ran in parallel with the TRIAGE trial that started in March 2019 and ended 31st of December 2019. The first set of interviews was conducted in June 2019 and the second set in January 2020. Data were analysed based on grounded theory. RESULTS: Through a deductive framework, facilitators and inhibitors could be identified on three levels: the organisational, group and individual level. Main inhibitors are the degree of risk aversion of individual nurses, possible language barriers during delivery of the triage advice and the non-adapted ED infrastructure. Training on both the use of the triage protocol and effective delivery of the triage advice, in combination with periodical feedback from the GPC were the most important facilitators. CONCLUSION: Based on the process evaluation we can conclude that a consensus exists among stakeholders that the ED Nurses are considered ideally positioned to perform the triage of walk-in patients, although a certain degree of experience is necessary. Although the extended triage protocol and GPC referral increases the complexity and duration of triage and entails a higher workload for the triage nurses, ED nurses found it did lead to a lower (perceived) workload for the ED in general.

Non-compliance with a nurse's advice to visit the primary care provider: an exploratory secondary analysis of the TRIAGE-trial.

BACKGROUND: During the cluster randomised TRIAGE-trial, a nurse advised 13% of low-risk patients presenting at an emergency department in Belgium to visit the adjacent general practitioner cooperative. Patients had the right to refuse this advice. This exploratory study examines the characteristics of refusers by uncovering the determinants of non-compliance and its impact on costs, as charged on the patient's invoice. METHODS: Bivariate analyses with logistic regressions and T-tests were used to test the differences in patient characteristics, patient status, timing characteristics, and costs between refusers and non-refusers. A chi-square automatic interaction detection analysis was used to find the predictors of non-compliance. RESULTS: 23.50% of the patients refused the advice to visit the general practitioner cooperative. This proportion was mainly influenced by the nurse on duty (non-compliance rates per nurse ranging from 2.9% to 52.8%) and the patients' socio-economic status (receiving increased reimbursement versus not OR 1.37, 95%CI: 0.96 to 1.95). Additionally, non-compliance was associated (at the 0.10 significance level) with being male, not living nearby and certain reasons for encounter. Fewer patients refused when the nurse perceived crowding level as quiet relative to normal, and more patients refused during the evening. The mean cost was significantly higher for patients who refused, which was a result of more extensive examination and higher out-of-pocket expenses at the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse providing the advice to visit the general practitioner cooperative has a central role in the likelihood of patients' refusal. Interventions to reduce non-compliance should aim at improving nurse-patient communication. Special attention may be required when managing patients with a lower socio-economic status. The overall mean cost was higher for refusers, illustrating the importance of compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on registration number NCT03793972 on 04/01/2019.

Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE trial): A cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a new triage system safely diverts a proportion of emergency department (ED) patients to a general practitioner cooperative (GPC). METHODS: Unblinded randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was triage by a nurse using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System assigning low-risk patients to the GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment; it was not communicated during control weekends (all patients remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care patients (the opinion of the treating physician was the gold standard). RESULTS: In the intervention group, 838/6294 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC, in the control group this was 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In total, 599/6294 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the reason for encounter, age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) were referred back to the ED, three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised. CONCLUSIONS: ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972.