scholarly journals The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial)

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (13) ◽  
pp. 1-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L Campbell ◽  
Emily Fletcher ◽  
Nicky Britten ◽  
Colin Green ◽  
Tim Holt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Telephone Triage ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundTelephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice.ObjectivesIn comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation.SettingGeneral practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk).ParticipantsPatients requesting same-day consultations.InterventionsPractices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation.Main outcome measuresPrimary – primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary – resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care.ResultsOf 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UCn = 7283; GPTn = 6695; NTn = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UCn = 5572; GPTn = 5171; NTn = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient–clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it.ConclusionsIntroducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Implementing complaint-directed mini-interventions for depressive complaints in primary care to increase participation among patients with a lower socioeconomic status: design of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie S. Leone ◽  
Suzanne Lokman ◽  
Brigitte Boon ◽  
Agnes van der Poel ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Implementation Strategy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Lower Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Lower Socioeconomic ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Depression is a major public health concern. E-health interventions for preventing and reducing depressive complaints have proven to be effective, and have the potential to make (mental) health care more accessible and efficient. However, the reach of these interventions needs to be improved, especially among people with a lower socioeconomic status (SES). Stimulating and supporting implementation of e-health in primary care, and offering guidance from general practice nurses (GP nurses) may be important strategies to achieve this. Methods/design The online ‘Complaint Directed Mini-Interventions’ (CDMIs) for stress, sleep and worry complaints, which were found to be (cost-)effective in a self-guided format, will be implemented in the primary care setting using a blended care format (i.e. combining e-health with face-to-face sessions) with minimal guidance provided by the GP nurse. The main aim is to evaluate whether a SES-sensitive implementation strategy improves the participation rate (i.e. reach) of lower-SES patients in the blended online CDMIs as compared to a regular implementation strategy in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Randomisation will occur at the level of the GP nurse, and 228 patients will be included in the study. The primary outcome is the participation rate (completing at least one face-to-face session and two online exercises) of the lower-SES target group. It is hypothesised that this percentage will be higher in the SES-sensitive group as compared to the regular group. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the implementation process, to monitor and evaluate psychological complaints (depression, sleep, stress, worry and anxiety) and well-being over time. Patient assessments will take place at baseline, 3 and 12 months post baseline. Discussion This study should contribute to our knowledge of reaching the lower-SES groups with a brief and complaint-specific blended approach for depressive complaints in primary care. It should also further our knowledge on successful strategies to implement depression prevention in primary care. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, ID: NL6595. Registered on 12 November 2017.

scholarly journals Advanced Access scheduling in general practice and use of primary care: a Danish population-based matched cohort study

BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101091
Author(s):  
Maria Bang ◽  
Henrik Schou Pedersen ◽  
Bodil Hammer Bech ◽  
Claus Høstrup Vestergaard ◽  
Jannik Falhof ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Matched Cohort ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Matched Cohort Study ◽  
Adjusted Incidence Rate ◽  
Advanced Access ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundAdvanced access scheduling (AAS) allows patients to receive care from their GP at the time chosen by the patient. AAS has shown to increase the accessibility to general practice, but little is known about how AAS implementation affects the use of in-hours and out-of-hours (OOH) services.AimTo describe the impact of AAS on the use of in-hours and OOH services in primary care.Design & settingA population-based matched cohort study using Danish register data.MethodA total of 161 901 patients listed in 33 general practices with AAS were matched with 287 837 reference patients listed in 66 reference practices without AAS. Outcomes of interest were use of daytime face-to-face consultations, and use of OOH face-to-face and phone consultations in a 2-year period preceding and following AAS implementation.ResultsNo significant differences were seen between AAS practices and reference practices. During the year following AAS implementation, the number of daytime face-to-face consultations was 3% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99 to 1.07) higher in the AAS practices compared with the number in the reference practices. Patients listed with an AAS practice had 2% (aIRR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.04) fewer OOH phone consultations and 6% (aIRR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.02) fewer OOH face-to-face consultations compared with patients listed with a reference practice.ConclusionThis study showed no significant differences following AAS implementation. However, a trend was seen towards slightly higher use of daytime primary care and lower use of OOH primary care.

scholarly journals Cluster randomised controlled trial of a guided self-help mental health intervention in primary care

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e023481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Mathieson ◽  
James Stanley ◽  
Catherine (Sunny) Collings ◽  
Rachel Tester ◽  
Anthony Dowell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo ascertain whether an ultrabrief intervention (UBI) improves mental health outcomes for patients in general practice with mild-to-moderate mental health concerns.Trial designTwo-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.MethodsParticipants: general practitioners (GPs) were invited based on working in a participating general practice. Patients were eligible to participate if aged 18–65 years, scored ≤35 on the Kessler-10 (K10) and if meeting local mental health access criteria (based on age, low income or ethnic group).Interventions: intervention arm GPs were trained on the UBI approach, with participating patients receiving three structured appointments over 5 weeks. GPs randomised to practice as usual (PAU) did not receive training, and delivered support following their existing practice approaches.Outcome measures: primary outcome was patient-level K10 score at 6 months postrecruitment.Randomisation: GP practices were randomised to UBI training or PAU at the start of the study.Blinding: GPs were not blinded to group assignment.ResultsNumbers randomised: 62 GPs (recruiting 85 patients) were randomised to UBI, and 50 to PAU (recruiting 75 patients).Numbers analysed: 31 GPs recruited at least one patient in the UBI arm (70 patients analysed), and 21 GPs recruited at least one patient in the PAU arm (69 patients analysed).Outcome: K10 scores from an intention-to-treat analysis were similar in UBI and PAU arms, with a wide CI (mean adjusted K10 difference=1.68 points higher in UBI arm, 95% CI −1.18 to 4.55; p=0.255). Secondary outcomes were also similar in the two groups.Conclusions: the UBI intervention did not lead to better outcomes than practice as usual, although the study had lower than planned power due to poor recruitment. The study results can still contribute to the continuing debate about brief psychological therapy options for primary care and their development.Trial registration numberACTRN12613000041752; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Triaging and Referring In Adjacent General and Emergency Departments (the TRIAGE trial): a cluster randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Morreel ◽  
Hilde Philips ◽  
Diana De Graeve ◽  
Koenraad G Monsieurs ◽  
Jarl Kampen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of a tool diverting low urgency patients eligible for primary care from an emergency department (ED) to the adjacent general practitioner cooperative (GPC). Methods: Unblinded, randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was nurse-led triage using a new tool assigning patients to either ED or GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment while it was not communicated to the patients during control weekends (they remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC during intervention and control weekends. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care eligible patients (with the opinion of the treating physician as the gold standard). Results: In the intervention group, 838/6374 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC (secondary outcome), in the control group 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In the intervention group, 599/6374 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the chosen MTS presentational flowchart, patient's age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) patients were referred back to the ED of which three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised. Conclusions: ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972 Funding: Research Foundation, Flanders (FWO)

scholarly journals Inequalities in general practice remote consultations: A systematic review

BJGP Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. BJGPO.2021.0040
Author(s):  
Ruth Parker ◽  
Emma Figures ◽  
Charlotte Paddison ◽  
James Matheson ◽  
David Blane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Remote Consultations

BackgroundCOVID-19 has led to rapid and widespread use of remote consultations in general practice, but the health inequalities impact remains unknown.AimTo explore the impact of remote consultations in general practice compared to face-to-face consultations on utilisation and clinical outcomes across socio-economic and disadvantaged groups.Design & settingSystematic reviewMethodWe undertook an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to June 2020. We included studies which compared remote consultations to face-to-face consultations in primary care and reported outcomes by PROGRESS Plus criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Data was synthesised narratively.ResultsBased on 13 studies, exploring telephone and internet-based consultations, we found that telephone consultations were used by younger working age people, the very old and non-immigrants, with internet-based consultations more likely to be used by younger people. Women consistently used more remote forms of consulting than men. Socio-economic and ethnicity findings were mixed, with weak evidence that patients from more affluent areas were more likely to use internet-based communication. Remote consultations appeared to help patients with opioid dependence remain engaged with primary care. No studies reported on the impact on quality of care or clinical outcomes.ConclusionRemote consultations in general practice are likely to be used more by younger working people, non-immigrants, the elderly and women, with internet-based consultations more by younger, affluent and educated groups. Wide-spread use of remote consultations should be treated with caution until the inequalities impact on clinical outcomes and quality of care is known.

scholarly journals Recruiting to a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based Program for People With Type 2 Diabetes and Depression: Lessons Learned at the Intersection of e-Mental Health and Primary Care (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Fletcher ◽  
Janine Clarke ◽  
Samineh Sanatkar ◽  
Peter Baldwin ◽  
Jane Gunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Recruitment Methods ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BACKGROUND E-mental health (eMH) interventions are now widely available and they have the potential to revolutionize the way that health care is delivered. As most health care is currently delivered by primary care, there is enormous potential for eMH interventions to support, or in some cases substitute, services currently delivered face to face in the community setting. However, randomized trials of eMH interventions have tended to recruit participants using online recruitment methods. Consequently, it is difficult to know whether participants who are recruited online differ from those who attend primary care. OBJECTIVE This paper aimed to document the experience of recruiting to an eMH trial through primary care and compare the characteristics of participants recruited through this and other recruitment methods. METHODS Recruitment to the SpringboarD randomized controlled trial was initially focused on general practices in 2 states of Australia. Over 15 months, we employed a comprehensive approach to engaging practice staff and supporting them to recruit patients, including face-to-face site visits, regular contact via telephone and trial newsletters, and development of a Web-based patient registration portal. Nevertheless, it became apparent that these efforts would not yield the required sample size, and we therefore supplemented recruitment through national online advertising and promoted the study through existing networks. Baseline characteristics of participants recruited to the trial through general practice, online, or other sources were compared using the analysis of variance and chi square tests. RESULTS Between November 2015 and October 2017, 780 people enrolled in SpringboarD, of whom 740 provided information on the recruitment source. Of these, only 24 were recruited through general practice, whereas 520 were recruited online and 196 through existing networks. Key barriers to general practice recruitment included perceived mismatch between trial design and diabetes population, prioritization of acute health issues, and disruptions posed by events at the practice and community level. Participants recruited through the 3 different approaches differed in age, gender, employment status, depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress, with online participants being distinguished from those recruited through general practice or other sources. However, most differences reached only a small effect size and are unlikely to be of clinical importance. CONCLUSIONS Time, labor, and cost-intensive efforts did not translate into successful recruitment through general practice in this instance, with barriers identified at several different levels. Online recruitment yielded more participants, who were broadly similar to those recruited via general practice.

scholarly journals The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Salisbury ◽  
Mairead Murphy ◽  
Polly Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Specialist Services ◽  
Key Variables ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors’ workload. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload. METHODS A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs. RESULTS Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question. CONCLUSIONS Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document