6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context.

          Methods

          We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work.

          Results

          GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the ‘right patients’ are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role.

          Conclusion

          GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations

          Background Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project’s aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. Methods We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. Results We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. Conclusion These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Associations between multimorbidity, healthcare utilisation and health status: evidence from 16 European countries.

              with ageing populations and increasing exposure to risk factors for chronic diseases, the prevalence of chronic disease multimorbidity is rising globally. There is little evidence on the determinants of multimorbidity and its impact on healthcare utilisation and health status in Europe.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Emerg Med J
                Emerg Med J
                emermed
                emj
                Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                1472-0205
                1472-0213
                May 2024
                22 April 2024
                : 41
                : 5
                : 287-295
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine , Ringgold_2112Cardiff University , Cardiff, UK
                [2 ] departmentWarwick Medical School , University of Warwick , Coventry, UK
                [3 ] School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [4 ] departmentSwansea University Medical School , Swansea University , Swansea, UK
                [5 ] departmentAustralian Institute of Health Innovation , Ringgold_7788Macquarie University , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [6 ] departmentEmergency Department , Ringgold_11269John Radcliffe Hospital , Oxford, UK
                [7 ] departmentLincoln School of Health and Social Care , University of Lincoln , Lincoln, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Alison Cooper, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; CooperA8@ 123456cardiff.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8660-6721
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7432-2828
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0293-0888
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5490-1267
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2484-8201
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3804-1943
                Article
                emermed-2023-213426
                10.1136/emermed-2023-213426
                11041563
                38649248
                11af092f-3132-4c5c-82f2-a7f85401311d
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 June 2023
                : 15 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR);
                Award ID: 15/145/04
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                primary care,emergency departments,general practitioners
                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                primary care, emergency departments, general practitioners

                Comments

                Comment on this article