Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow testing and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well-received ideas have low uptake.

Introduction: In January 2021, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the emergency department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot among paramedics, we undertook a process evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot. Methods: We undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis. Results: Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being 'research-keen') and negatively influenced by 'COVID-19 exhaustion', electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to 'poor timing' of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria. Participants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves, and supported future roll-out. Conclusions: Ambulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.

Prioritizing novel and existing ambulance performance measures through expert and lay consensus: A three-stage multimethod consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Current ambulance quality and performance measures, such as response times, do not reflect the wider scope of care that services now provide. Using a three-stage consensus process, we aimed to identify new ways of measuring ambulance service quality and performance that represent service provider and public perspectives. DESIGN: A multistakeholder consensus event, modified Delphi study, and patient and public consensus workshop. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from ambulance services, patient and public involvement (PPI) groups, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policymakers. RESULTS: Nine measures/principles were highly prioritized by >75% of consensus event participants, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to further refine and prioritize measures; 20 measures in three domains scored ≥8/9, indicating good consensus, including proportion of calls correctly prioritized, time to definitive care and measures related to pain. Eighteen patient/public representatives attended a consensus workshop, and six measures were identified as important. These include time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain scores, calls correctly prioritized to appropriate levels of response and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Using consensus methods, we identified a shortlist of ambulance outcome and performance measures that are important to ambulance clinicians and service providers, service users, commissioners, and clinical academics, reflecting current pre-hospital ambulance care and services. The measures can potentially be used to assess pre-hospital quality or performance over time, with most calculated using routinely available data.

Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Rising demand for emergency and urgent care services is well documented, as are the consequences, for example, emergency department (ED) crowding, increased costs, pressure on services, and waiting times. Multiple factors have been suggested to explain why demand is increasing, including an aging population, rising number of people with multiple chronic conditions, and behavioral changes relating to how people choose to access health services. The aim of this systematic mapping review was to bring together published research from urgent and emergency care settings to identify drivers that underpin patient decisions to access urgent and emergency care. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted across Medline (via Ovid SP), EMBASE (via Ovid), The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via the Web of Knowledge), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; via EBSCOhost). Peer-reviewed studies written in English that reported reasons for accessing or choosing emergency or urgent care services and were published between 1995 and 2016 were included. Data were extracted and reasons for choosing emergency and urgent care were identified and mapped. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and findings were reported qualitatively using framework-based narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were set in the United Kingdom (39.4%) or the United States (34.2%) and reported results relating to ED (68.4%). Thirty-nine percent of studies utilized qualitative or mixed research designs. Our thematic analysis identified six broad themes that summarized reasons why patients chose to access ED or urgent care. These were access to and confidence in primary care; perceived urgency, anxiety, and the value of reassurance from emergency-based services; views of family, friends, or healthcare professionals; convenience (location, not having to make appointment, and opening hours); individual patient factors (e.g., cost); and perceived need for emergency medical services or hospital care, treatment, or investigations. CONCLUSIONS: We identified six distinct reasons explaining why patients choose to access emergency and urgent care services: limited access to or confidence in primary care; patient perceived urgency; convenience; views of family, friends, or other health professionals; and a belief that their condition required the resources and facilities offered by a particular healthcare provider. There is a need to examine demand from a whole system perspective to gain better understanding of demand for different parts of the emergency and urgent care system and the characteristics of patients within each sector.

A structured judgement method to enhance mortality case note review: development and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Case note review remains a prime means of retrospectively assessing quality of care. This study examines a new implicit judgement method, combining structured reviewer comments with quality of care scores, to assess care of people who die in hospital. METHODS: Using 1566 case notes from 20 English hospitals, 40 physicians each reviewed 30-40 case notes, writing structured judgement-based comments on care provided within three phases of care, and on care overall, and scoring quality of care from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 6 (very best care). Quality of care comments on 119 people who died (7.6% of the cohort) were analysed independently by two researchers to investigate how well reviewers provided structured short judgement notes on quality of care, together with appropriate care scores. Consistency between explanatory textual data and related scores was explored, using overall care score to group cases. RESULTS: Physician reviewers made informative, clinical judgement-based comments across all phases of care and usually provided a coherent quality of care score relating to each phase. The majority of comments (83%) were explicit judgements. About a fifth of patients were considered to have received less than satisfactory care, often experiencing a series of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of implicit judgement, explicit explanatory comment and related quality of care scores can be used effectively to review the spectrum of care provided for people who die in hospital. The method can be used to quickly evaluate deaths so that lessons can be learned about both poor and high quality care.

Quality and safety of care provided by emergency care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The emergency care practitioner (ECP) role in the UK health service involves paramedic and nurse practitioners with advanced training to assess and treat minor illness and injury. Available evidence suggests that the introduction of this role has been advantageous in terms of managing an increased demand for emergency care, but there is little evidence regarding the quality and safety implications of ECP schemes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare the quality and safety of care provided by ECPs with non-ECP (eg, paramedic, nurse practitioner) care across three different types of emergency care settings: static services (emergency department, walk-in-centre, minor injury unit); ambulance/care home services (mobile); primary care out of hours services. METHODS: A retrospective patient case note review was conducted to compare the quality and safety of care provided by ECPs and non-ECPs across matched sites in three types of emergency care settings. Retrospective assessment of care provided was conducted by experienced clinicians. The study was part of a larger trial evaluating ECP schemes (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN22085282). RESULTS: Care provided by ECPs was rated significantly higher than that of non-ECPs across some aspects of care. The differences detected, although statistically significant, are small and may not reflect clinical significance. On other aspects of care, ECPs were rated as equal to their non-ECP counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: As a minimum, care provided should meet the standards of existing service models and the findings from the study suggest that this is true of ECPs regardless of the service they are operational in.