Cost-effectiveness of implementing new guidelines for treatment of hypertension in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major public health concern and, as the population ages, the size of the problem is likely to increase. However, detection rates and treatment of hypertension have been low. The introduction of new guidelines for the detection and treatment of hypertension have been encouraged but without any consideration to their cost-effectiveness. AIM: To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of implementing new guidelines for the treatment of hypertension in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Model examining the incremental costs and effects of the new guidelines compared with the old. SETTING: A large general practice in north Yorkshire. METHOD: Two thousand and twenty-three patients reporting for a new health patient check had the costs and outcomes under the old and new guidelines estimated. RESULTS: Implementing new guidelines for the detection, management, and treatment of hypertension in a primary care setting is more costly than the implementation of previous guidelines, but more effective in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. The incremental cost per cardiovascular disease event avoided is ?30 000, although sensitivity analysis shows that the estimate is subject to considerable uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previous guidelines, introducing new guidelines for the management and treatment of hypertension in new patients in general practice is likely to be cost-effective. However, the workforce implications for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses should be considered.

NHS Direct versus general practice based triage for same day appointments in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effects on consultation workload and costs of off-site triage by NHS Direct for patients requesting same day appointments compared with usual on-site nurse telephone triage in general practice. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Three primary care sites in York, England. PARTICIPANTS: 4703 patients: 2452 with practice based triage, 2251 with NHS Direct triage. All consecutive patients making requests for same day appointments during study weeks were eligible for the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type of consultation after request for same day appointment (telephone, appointment, or visit); time taken for consultation; service use during the month after same day contact; costs of same day, follow up, and emergency care. RESULTS: Patients in the NHS Direct group were less likely to have their call resolved by a nurse and were more likely to have an appointment with a general practitioner. Mean total time per patient in the NHS Direct group was 7.62 minutes longer than in the practice based group. Costs were greater in the NHS Direct group--2.88 pounds sterling (0.88 pounds sterling to 4.87 pounds sterling) per patient triaged--as a result of the difference between the groups in proportions of patients at each final point contact after triage. CONCLUSIONS: External management of requests for same day appointments by nurse telephone triage through NHS Direct is possible but comes at a higher cost than practice nurse delivered triage in primary care. If NHS Direct could achieve the same proportions of consultation types as practice based triage, costs would be comparable.

Quality monitoring of nurse telephone triage: pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Nurse telephone triage is a popular way of managing workload in primary care and has been shown to be as safe as general practitioner (GP)-delivered alternatives. No studies have tested a routine method of assessing the quality of decision-making by triage nurses in primary care. AIMS: The aim of this paper is to describe a study to evaluate accuracy and utility of audiotaping telephone consultations to assess the quality of decisions made by practice nurses triaging same day appointment requests in routine practice. METHOD: An observational study was carried out using external assessment by GPs and nurse practitioners of triage quality in 218 audiotaped nurse telephone triage consultations. RESULTS: There were high levels of agreement between triage nurses and assessors on identifying the presenting problem. However, there were only moderate levels of agreement between GPs and nurse assessors both on level of information sought (kappa = 0.434) and appropriateness of outcome (kappa = 0.614). Assessors rated information-gathering as poor in 19.3% of calls (95% confidence interval 14.6 to 25.0), and seven (3.2%) consultations were rated as potentially dangerous (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 6.5). A 1% sample of all consultations would have a probability of 0.48 of identifying unsafe consultations and 0.99 probability of identifying consultations with poor information-gathering. CONCLUSIONS: External assessment of triage quality may be of only moderate accuracy and reliability. Nonetheless, considerable information can be gleaned from assessing audiotapes to assess consultation quality. Even where nurses are generally highly skilled and competent, a 1% review of triage consultations would be sufficient to identify their information-gathering learning needs in relation to patients' presenting problems. Audio-taped consultations could be an important part of clinical governance strategies.

Survey of the impact of nurse telephone triage on general practitioner activity.

BACKGROUND: Nurse management of minor illness is a common method of demand management in primary care. Delegation of minor illness management to nurses may result in a change in patients' presenting problems and the consequent consulting behaviours of general practitioners (GPs). AIMS: To assess the impact of nurse telephone triage in primary care on the consulting behaviours of GPs. DESIGN OF STUDY: Survey of patient records. SETTING: Three primary care practice sites in York. METHOD: During randomly selected weeks, 1 month before and 6 months after the implementation of nurse telephone triage, we measured the number of presenting problems per patient and the following four consulting behaviours of doctors: the number of consultations during the 4 weeks before and after the index consultation, the number of prescribed items, the number of outside referrals, and the number of investigations. RESULTS: During standard management 1102 index consultations were identified, and during triage 1080 were identified. Patients seen by doctors in the triage system had significantly more presenting problems and received more consultations, prescriptions, and investigations. Numbers of referrals to secondary care were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Delegating the management of patients with minor illness to nurses in a telephone triage system may result in an overall increase in the number of presenting problems per patient, as well as changing GPs' consulting behaviours. Appointment systems may have to be adjusted to ensure patients receive more GP time. Further work on developing measures of complexity and controlled studies of the impact of new working arrangements on workload in primary care are required.

Nurse telephone triage for same day appointments in general practice: multiple interrupted time series trial of effect on workload and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the workloads of general practitioners and nurses and costs of patient care for nurse telephone triage and standard management of requests for same day appointments in routine primary care. DESIGN: Multiple interrupted time series using sequential introduction of experimental triage system in different sites with repeated measures taken one week in every month for 12 months. SETTING: Three primary care sites in York. PARTICIPANTS: 4685 patients: 1233 in standard management, 3452 in the triage system. All patients requesting same day appointments during study weeks were included in the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type of consultation (telephone, appointment, or visit), time taken for consultation, presenting complaints, use of services during the month after same day contact, and costs of drugs and same day, follow up, and emergency care. RESULTS: The triage system reduced appointments with general practitioner by 29-44%. Compared with standard management, the triage system had a relative risk (95% confidence interval) of 0.85 (0.72 to 1.00) for home visits, 2.41 (2.08 to 2.80) for telephone care, and 3.79 (3.21 to 4.48) for nurse care. Mean overall time in the triage system was 1.70 minutes longer, but mean general practitioner time was reduced by 2.45 minutes. Routine appointments and nursing time increased, as did out of hours and accident and emergency attendance. Costs did not differ significantly between standard management and triage: mean difference pound 1.48 more per patient for triage (95% confidence interval -0.19 to 3.15). CONCLUSIONS: Triage reduced the number of same day appointments with general practitioners but resulted in busier routine surgeries, increased nursing time, and a small but significant increase in out of hours and accident and emergency attendance. Consequently, triage does not reduce overall costs per patient for managing same day appointments.