The feasibility of teleconsultations in unplanned primary care: an intervention study in Belgium, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2000, an increasing misuse of emergency services in Belgium was noticed. In 2015, a multidisciplinary task-force designed a triage system. Trained operators and integrated triage protocols were installed in a call center for life-threatening and non-life-threatening care needs. Teleconsultations by telephone find their way to planned care and are well studied in this context. Also unplanned care might benefit from telephone-consultations. METHOD: This intervention study investigated the feasibility of teleconsultations in unplanned care according to medical doctors. They were present at the call center during the weekend and on public holidays in the period of April 17, 2021 to November 21, 2021. Their task was to call patients who had contacted the call center to perform a teleconsultation, without interfering with regular care. RESULTS: 21 triage doctors participated in the study, they completed 59 surveys and conducted 551 teleconsultations. They perceived the quality of the consultations as good with an average score of 82.85 out of 100 on the sliding scale. The doctors gave an average score of 72.40 for the level of certainty for diagnosis and treatment. For 415 consultations, triage doctors judged that the consultation would gain certainty if followed by a physical examination. Video was mainly considered to be valuable in psychiatric problems, allergic reactions and skin problems. DISCUSSION: This study showed that teleconsultations are feasible in unplanned care. Videos add value in particular cases. Only few barriers are reported in terms of communication, technology and equipment. CONCLUSION: Teleconsultations in unplanned primary care could be performed with a high quality and a sufficient level of certainty. The willingness to conduct teleconsultations in unplanned care is high. It would be useful in a future study to investigate the feasibility, obstacles and needs for implementation of video consultations as they may differ from teleconsultations.

The implementation of the nationwide out-of-hours phone number 1733 in Belgium: analysis of efficiency and safety.

BACKGROUND: Belgium has a problem with inappropriate use of emergency services. The government installed the number 1733 for out-of-hours care. Through a dry run test, we learned that 30% of all calls were allocated to the protocol 'unclear problem'. In only 11.9% of all cases, there was an unclear problem. METHODS: The study aimed to determine whether the adjusted protocol 'unwell for no clear reason' led to a safer and more efficient referral and to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the primary care protocols (PCPs). The study ran in cross-sectional design involving patients, General Practitioner Cooperatives and telephone operators. A random sample of calls to 1733 and patient referrals were assessed on efficiency and safety. RESULTS: During 6 months in 2018, 11 622 calls to 1733 were registered. Seven hundred fifty-six of them were allocated to 'unwell for no clear reason', and a random sample of 180 calls was audited. To evaluate the PCPs, 202 calls were audited. The efficiency and safety of the protocol 'unwell for no clear reason' improved, and safety levels for under- and over-triage were not exceeded. The GP's judged that 9/10 of all patient encounters were correctly referred. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the 1733-telephone triage system for out-of-hours care is successful if protocols, flow charts and emergency levels are well defined, monitored and operators are trained.

Co-location of out of hours primary care and emergency department in Belgium: patients' and physicians' view.

BACKGROUND: In Belgium, General Practitioner Cooperatives (GPC) aim to improve working conditions for unplanned care and to reduce the number of low acuity emergency visits. Although this system is well organized, the number of low acuity visits does not decrease. METHODS: We explored the view of patients and physicians on the co-location of a GPC and an emergency service for unplanned care. The study was carried out in a cross section design in primary and emergency care services and included patients and physicians. Main outcome measure was the view of patients and physician on co-location of a GPC and an emergency service. RESULTS: 404 patients and 488 physicians participated. 334 (82.7%) of all patients favoured a co-location. The major advantages were fast service (104, 25.7) and adequate referral (54, 13.4%). 237 (74%) of the GPs and 38 (95%) of the emergency physicians were in favour of a co-location. The major advantage was a more adequate referral of patients. 254 (79%) of the GPs and 23 (83%) of the emergency physicians believed that a co-location would lower the workload and waiting time and increase care quality (resp. 251 (78%), 224 (70%) and 37 (93%), 34 (85%). CONCLUSIONS: To close the expectation gap between GP's, emergency physicians and to reach for high care quality, information campaigns and development of workflows are indispensable for a successful implementation of a co-location of primary and emergency care.