Impact of employing primary healthcare professionals in emergency department triage on patient flow outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes. METHODS: We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool. RESULTS: From 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre-post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020148053.

Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department overcrowding: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding. METHODS: We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages). RESULTS: From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either 'within ED' (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or 'outside ED' interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The 'within ED' and 'outside ED' interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.

Partners for the optimal organisation of the healthcare continuum for high users of health and social services: protocol of a developmental evaluation case study design.

INTRODUCTION: Case management allows us to respond to the complex needs of a vulnerable clientele through a structured approach that promotes enhanced interaction between partners. Syntheses on the subject converge towards a need for a better description of the relationships between programmes and their local context, as well as the characteristics of the clienteles and programmes that contribute to positive impacts. The purpose of this project is thus to describe and evaluate the case management programmes of four health and social services centres in the Saguenay-Lac- Saint-Jean region of Québec, Canada, in order to inform their improvement while creating knowledge on case management that can be useful in other contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research relies on a multiple embedded case study design based on a developmental evaluation approach. We will work with the case management programme for high users of hospital services of each centre. Three different units of analysis will be interwoven to obtain an in-depth understanding of each case, that is: (1) health and social services centre and local services network, (2) case management programme and (3) patients who are high users of services. Two strategies for programme evaluation (logic models and implementation analysis) will guide the mixed data collection based on qualitative and quantitative methods. This data collection will rely on: (1) individual interviews and focus groups; (2) participant observation; (3) document analysis; (4) clinical and administrative data and (5) questionnaires. Description and comparison of cases, and integration of qualitative and quantitative data will be used to guide the data analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Research Boards of the four health and social services centres (HSSCs) involved. Findings will be disseminated by publications in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and policy and practice partners in local and national government.

Cost effectiveness of the sirolimus-eluting stent in high-risk patients in Canada: an analysis from the C-SIRIUS trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in Canada is debated and deserves further evaluation in high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed an economic analysis from the third-party payer perspective based on the clinical results and resource-utilization data of the C-SIRIUS (The Canadian Study of the Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Patients with Long De Novo Lesions in Small Native Coronary Arteries) trial, which examined the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in high-risk patients with single long de novo lesions in small coronary arteries. Only inpatient costs were considered, including physician fees. We postulated that the incremental cost required to avoid a repeat revascularization (RR) procedure with BMS versus simple balloon angioplasty (BA) could be considered the willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid restenosis in Canada. We assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SES compared with BMS in these high-risk patients compared with WTP. Results are expressed in 2003 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: With a 7% absolute reduction in the need for RR compared with BA, BMS are associated on average with an ICER of US dollars 12,551/RR avoided (RRA) in Canada. In C-SIRIUS, SES further reduced the need for RR at 1 year from 22% to 4% (p = 0.015) compared with BMS. With a 1.5 stent-to-lesion (STL) ratio and an SES retail price of US dollars 2,700 compared with US dollars 700 for BMS, the ICER of SES versus BMS was US dollars 11,275/RRA -- borderline cost effective compared with the implicit WTP of US dollars 12,551 for such health benefit in Canada. Using a lower STL ratio (1.2) would improve the ICER to US dollars 7941/RRA. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of long lesions in small vessels with SES increases net healthcare costs. However, the ICER for SES compares favorably with the currently accepted comparator, i.e. BMS, to reduce coronary restenosis -- at least for higher risk patients undergoing single-vessel revascularization.