Primary care units in A&E departments in North Thames in the 1990s: initial experience and future implications.

BACKGROUND: In 1992, the Tomlinson Report recommended a shift from secondary to primary care, including specific primary care provision in accident and emergency (A&E) departments. Availability of short-term so-called Tomlinson moneys allowed a number of experimental services. A study of the experience of A&E-based staff is reported to assist general practitioners (GPs) and purchasers and identify areas for further research. AIMS: To find the number and scope of primary care facilities in A&E services in North Thames; to find factors encouraging or inhibiting the setting-up of a successful service; to examine the views of a range of A&E staff including GPs, consultants, and nurses; and to suggest directions for more specific research. METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to all North Thames A&E departments, and an interview study of staff in one unit was arranged, leading to a questionnaire study of all GPs employed in North Thames primary care services in A&E. This was followed by interviews of staff members in five contrasting primary care units in A&E. RESULTS: By mid-1995, at least 16 of the 33 North Thames A&E departments ran a primary care service. Seven mainly employed GPs, the others employed nurse practitioners (NPs). Problems for GPs included unclear role definition and their non-availability at times of highest patient demand. GPs' reasons for working in A&E sometimes differed from the aims of primary care in an A&E service. Staff interviews revealed differing views about their role and about use of triage protocols. Ethnicity data were being collected, but not yet being used, to improve service to patients. CONCLUSIONS: A number of benefits follow the introduction of primary care practitioners into A&E. Different models have evolved, with a variety of GP and NP staffing arrangements according to local ideas and priorities. There is some confusion over whether these services aim to improve A&E-based care or to divert it to general practice. Cost information is inadequate so far, though the use of GPs has shown the possibility of economy. Appropriate location of services requires clearer identification of costs. This may be possible for the proposed primary care groups.

Disease prevention and health promotion: a study of medical students and teachers.

All students at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine (n = 508) were surveyed on their self-reported smoking and drinking habits, attitudes to disease prevention and health promotion in general, attitudes towards the teaching of disease prevention and health promotion, and their perception of what was taught at the beginning of the 1993-1994 academic year (response rate 75.2%). The teaching staff (n = 271) were also surveyed on their attitudes towards the teaching of disease prevention and health promotion, and their perception of what was taught (response rate 74.2%). Seventeen per cent of the students reported they were current smokers and 81% drank alcohol. Four factors were extracted from the responses to the items on disease prevention and health promotion in general and these represented the importance of health, a patient-centred approach, patient responsibility and a doctor-centred approach. Clinical students and those who were older were more likely to have a 'patient-centred' approach to disease prevention and health promotion. Sixty per cent of clinical and 44% of pre-clinical teachers aimed to teach about disease prevention and health promotion. The topics reported by students as most likely to have been taught in detail are smoking and health, alcohol and health, immunization, and breast and cervical screening. However, all these topics were reported as having been taught in detail by less than 50% of the students. The majority of students and teachers believe that teaching about disease prevention and health promotion should be integrated into all years of the curriculum and all clinical firms. Teachers were significantly less likely than students to believe that students should learn more about disease prevention and health promotion, and that learning about prevention is as important as learning about diagnosis and treatment. We believe that, in order to build on the positive features highlighted in this study, agreed aims and objectives should be developed and teaching about disease prevention and health promotion should be integrated both horizontally and vertically throughout the curriculum.