"I do not know the advantages of having a general practitioner" - a qualitative study exploring the views of low-acuity emergency patients without a regular general practitioner toward primary care.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (ED) worldwide have to cope with rising patient numbers. Low-acuity consulters who could receive a more suitable treatment in primary care (PC) increase caseloads, and lack of PC attachment has been discussed as a determinant. This qualitative study explores factors that contribute to non-utilization of general practitioner (GP) care among patients with no current attachment to a GP. METHOD: Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 32 low-acuity ED consulters with no self-reported attachment to a GP. Participants were recruited from three EDs in the city center of Berlin, Germany. Data were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Interviewed patients reported heterogeneous factors contributing to their PC utilization behavior and underlying views and experiences. Participants most prominently voiced a rare need for medical services, a distinct mobility behavior, and a lack of knowledge about the role of a GP and health care options. Views about and experiences with GP care that contribute to non-utilization were predominantly related to little confidence in GP care, preference for directly consulting medical specialists, and negative experiences with GP care in the past. Contrasting their reported utilization behavior, many interviewees still recognized the advantages of GP care continuity. CONCLUSION: Understanding reasons of low-acuity ED patients for GP non-utilization can play an important role in the design and implementation of patient-centered care interventions for PC integration. Increasing GP utilization, continuity of care and health literacy might have positive effects on patient decision-making in acute situations and in turn decrease ED burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00023480; date: 2020/11/27.

Exploring the views of low-acuity emergency department consulters on an educational intervention and general practitioner appointment service: a qualitative study in Berlin, Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Low-acuity patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) frequently have unmet ambulatory care needs. This qualitative study explores the patients' views of an intervention aimed at education about care options and promoting primary care (PC) attachment. DESIGN: Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants of an interventional pilot study, based on a semi-structured interview guide. The data were analysed through qualitative content analysis. SETTING: The study was carried out in three EDs in the city centre of Berlin, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two low-acuity ED consulters with no connection to a general practitioner (GP) who had participated in the pilot study were interviewed; (f/m: 15/17; mean age: 32.9 years). INTERVENTION: In the pilot intervention, ED patients with low-acuity complaints were provided with an information leaflet on appropriate ED usage and alternative care paths and they were offered an optional GP appointment scheduling service. Qualitative interviews explored the views of a subsample of the participants on the intervention. RESULTS: Interviewees perceived both parts of the intervention as valuable. Receiving a leaflet about appropriate ED use and alternatives to the ED was viewed as helpful, with participants expressing the desire for additional online information and a wider distribution of the content. The GP appointment service was positively assessed by the participants who had made use of this offer and seen as potentially helpful in establishing a long-term connection to GP care. The majority of patients declining a scheduled GP appointment expected no personal need for further medical care in the near future or preferred to choose a GP independently. CONCLUSIONS: Low-acuity ED patients seem receptive to information on alternative acute care options and prevailingly appreciate measures to encourage and facilitate attachment to a GP. Promoting PC integration could contribute to a change in future usage behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023480.

Redirecting emergency medical services patients with unmet primary care needs: the perspective of paramedics on feasibility and acceptance of an alternative care path in a qualitative investigation from Berlin, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Against the backdrop of emergency department (ED) overcrowding, patients' potential redirection to outpatient care structures is a subject of current political debate in Germany. It was suggested in this context that suitable lower-urgency cases could be transported directly to primary care practices by emergency medical services (EMS), thus bypassing the ED. However, practicality is discussed controversially. This qualitative study aimed to capture the perspective of EMS personnel on potential patient redirection concepts. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured phone interviews with 24 paramedics. Interviews were concluded after attainment of thematic saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Technical and organizational feasibility of patients' redirection was predominantly seen as limited (theme: "feasible, but only under certain conditions") or even impossible (theme: "actually not feasible"), based on a wide spectrum of potential barriers. Prominently voiced reasons were restrictions in personnel resources in both EMS and ambulatory care, as well as concerns for patient safety ascribed to a restricted diagnostic scope. Concerning logistics, alternative transport options were assessed as preferable. Regarding acceptance by stakeholders, the potential for releasing ED caseload was described as a factor potentially promoting adoption, while doubt was raised regarding acceptance by EMS personnel, as their workload was expected to conversely increase. Paramedics predominantly did not consider transporting lower-urgency cases as their responsibility, or even as necessary. Participants were markedly concerned of EMS being misused for taxi services in this context and worried about negative impact for critically ill patients, as to vehicles and personnel being potentially tied up in unnecessary transports. As to acceptance on the patients' side, interview participants surmised a potential openness to redirection if this would be associated with benefits like shorter wait times and accompanied by proper explanation. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with EMS staff highlighted considerable doubts about the general possibility of a direct redirection to primary care as to considerable logistic challenges in a situation of strained EMS resources, as well as patient safety concerns. Plans for redirection schemes should consider paramedics' perspective and ensure a provision of EMS with the resources required to function in a changing care environment.

Emergency department consultations for respiratory symptoms revisited: exploratory investigation of longitudinal trends in patients' perspective on care, health care utilization, and general and mental health, from a multicenter study in Berlin, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Only few studies of emergency department (ED) consulters include a longitudinal investigation. The EMACROSS study had surveyed 472 respiratory patients in eight inner-city EDs in Berlin in 2017/2018 for demographic, medical and consultation-related characteristics. This paper presents the results of a follow-up survey at a median of 95 days post-discharge. We aimed to explore the post hoc assessment of ED care and identify potential longitudinal trends. METHODS: The follow-up survey included items on satisfaction with care received, benefit from the ED visit, potential alternative care, health care utilization, mental and general health, and general life satisfaction. Univariable between-subject and within-subject statistical comparisons were conducted. Logistic regression was performed for multivariable investigations of determinants of dropout and of retrospectively rating the ED visit as beneficial. RESULTS: Follow-up data was available for 329 patients. Participants of lower education status, migrants, and tourists were more likely to drop out. Having a general practitioner (GP), multimorbidity, and higher general life satisfaction were determinants of response. Retrospective satisfaction ratings were high with no marked longitudinal changes and waiting times as the most frequent reason for dissatisfaction. Retrospective assessment of the visit as beneficial was positively associated with male sex, diagnoses of pneumonia and respiratory failure, and self-referral. Concerning primary care as a viable alternative, judgment at the time of the ED visit and at follow-up did not differ significantly. Health care utilization post-discharge increased for GPs and pulmonologists. Self-reported general health and PHQ-4 anxiety scores were significantly improved at follow-up, while general life satisfaction for the overall sample was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients retrospectively assess the ED visit as satisfactory and beneficial. Possible sex differences in perception of care and its outcomes should be further investigated. Conceivable efforts at diversion of ED utilizers to primary care should consider patients' views regarding acceptable alternatives, which appear relatively independent of situational factors. Representativeness of results is restricted by the study focus on respiratory symptoms, the limited sample size, and the attrition rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011930 ); date: 2017/04/25.

Diverting less urgent utilizers of emergency medical services to primary care: is it feasible? Patient and morbidity characteristics from a cross-sectional multicenter study of self-referring respiratory emergency department consulters.

OBJECTIVE: Diversion of less urgent emergency medical services (EMS) callers to alternative primary care (PC) is much debated. Using data from the EMACROSS survey of respiratory ED patients, we aimed to characterize self-referred EMS patients, compare these with non-EMS patients, and assess scope and acceptability of a potential redirection to alternative PC. RESULTS: Of n = 292 self-referred patients, n = 99 were transported by EMS. Compared to non-EMS patients, these were older, triaged more urgently and arrived out-of-hours more frequently. The share of chronically and severely ill patients was greater. Out-of-hours ED visit, presence of a chronic pulmonary condition as well as a hospital diagnosis of respiratory failure were identified as determinants of EMS utilization in a logistic model, while consultation for access and quality motives as well as migrant status decreased the probability. EMS-transported lower urgency outpatients visiting during regular physicians' hours were defined as potential PC cases and evaluated descriptively (n = 9). As a third was medically complex and potentially less suitable for PC, redirection potential could be estimated at only 6% of EMS cases. This would be reduced to 2% if considering patients' judgment concerning the appropriate setting. Overall, the scope for PC diversion of respiratory EMS patients seems limited.