'I just need to find out if I had broken something or not.' A qualitative descriptive study into patient decisions to present to an Emergency Department with a simple fracture.

Background To investigate what factors contribute to a working age adult with a simple fracture seeking care in an Australian metropolitan Emergency Department (ED) Methods In this Qualitative Descriptive study, we interviewed ED patients with simple fractures including 5th metacarpal, 5th metatarsal, toe, radial head and clavicle fractures. Results We interviewed 30 patients aged 18-65. Two thirds of participants were aware they might have a minor injury. Many were well informed health consumers and convenience was the most important decision-making factor. Participants focussed on organising imaging, diagnosis and immobilisation. This sequence of care was often perceived as more complex and inefficient in primary care. ED was trusted and preferred to urgent primary care with an unknown doctor. Some patients defaulted to attending ED without considering alternatives due to poor health system knowledge or from escalating anxiety. Conclusions ED is safe, free and equipped to manage simple and complex injuries. Patients would attend primary care if comprehensive fracture management was easily accessible from a trusted clinician. To effectively divert simple fracture presentations from ED, primary care requires collocated imaging, imaging interpretation, orthopaedic expertise, and fracture management resources. Services need to operate 7 days a week and must have accessible 'urgent' appointments.

'I'm not in GP pain, I'm in hospital pain': Qualitative study regarding patient decision-making factors in seeking care in the emergency department with non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors contributing to the decision for a working age adult experiencing non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) to seek care at an Australian metropolitan tertiary ED. METHODS: Participants triaged with NSLBP were recruited from one metropolitan tertiary Australian ED. We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology using semi-structured interviews to collect data. The short-form Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire was administered pre-interview and used to inform discussion of psychosocial factors in the interview. RESULTS: Patient perception and interpretation of their low back pain symptoms was the most important participant decision-making factor. This was part of the care-seeking decision for all participants. Convenience of care accessed in the ED was also important with many participants aiming to avoid multiple appointments in primary care settings while in pain or attending ED because it was close to home. Participants expected high-quality care in the ED and often did not identify an alternative in primary care they believed could provide an equivalent standard of care. Few participants were advised to attend ED by a GP or physiotherapist, but when given, this advice was a critical factor. CONCLUSIONS: Patient beliefs about NSLBP are important drivers of ED care seeking. Evidence-based guidelines recommend screening for red flags and then addressing pain and disability through engagement with patient concerns and providing a management plan/pathway. In the ED setting, addressing the anxieties of these patients and re-interpreting the significance of their pain may be a path to providing time efficient high-value care.