Cargando…

Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential impacts of introducing General Practitioners into Emergency Departments (GPED) from the perspectives of service leaders, health professionals and patients. These ‘expectations of impact’ can be used to generate hypotheses that will inform future implementations a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scantlebury, Arabella, Brant, Heather, Anderson, Helen, Leggett, Heather, Salisbury, Chris, Cowlishaw, Sean, Voss, Sarah, Benger, Jonathan Richard, Adamson, Joy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8149439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34031113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045453
_version_ 1783697961919709184
author Scantlebury, Arabella
Brant, Heather
Anderson, Helen
Leggett, Heather
Salisbury, Chris
Cowlishaw, Sean
Voss, Sarah
Benger, Jonathan Richard
Adamson, Joy
author_facet Scantlebury, Arabella
Brant, Heather
Anderson, Helen
Leggett, Heather
Salisbury, Chris
Cowlishaw, Sean
Voss, Sarah
Benger, Jonathan Richard
Adamson, Joy
author_sort Scantlebury, Arabella
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential impacts of introducing General Practitioners into Emergency Departments (GPED) from the perspectives of service leaders, health professionals and patients. These ‘expectations of impact’ can be used to generate hypotheses that will inform future implementations and evaluations of GPED. DESIGN: Qualitative study consisting of 228 semistructured interviews. SETTING: 10 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and the wider healthcare system in England. Interviews were undertaken face to face or via telephone. Data were analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: 124 health professionals and 94 patients and carers. 10 service leaders representing a range of national organisations and government departments across England (eg, NHS England and Department of Health) were also interviewed. RESULTS: A range of GPED models are being implemented across the NHS due to different interpretations of national policy and variation in local context. This has resulted in stakeholders and organisations interpreting the aims of GPED differently and anticipating a range of potential impacts. Participants expected GPED to affect the following areas: ED performance indicators; patient outcome and experience; service access; staffing and workforce experience; and resources. Across these ‘domains of influence’, arguments for positive, negative and no effect of GPED were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating whether GPED has been successful will be challenging. However, despite uncertainty surrounding the direction of effect, there was agreement across all stakeholder groups on the areas that GPED would influence. As a result, we propose eight domains of influence that will inform our subsequent mixed-methods evaluation of GPED. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8149439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81494392021-06-09 Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation Scantlebury, Arabella Brant, Heather Anderson, Helen Leggett, Heather Salisbury, Chris Cowlishaw, Sean Voss, Sarah Benger, Jonathan Richard Adamson, Joy BMJ Open Emergency Medicine OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential impacts of introducing General Practitioners into Emergency Departments (GPED) from the perspectives of service leaders, health professionals and patients. These ‘expectations of impact’ can be used to generate hypotheses that will inform future implementations and evaluations of GPED. DESIGN: Qualitative study consisting of 228 semistructured interviews. SETTING: 10 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and the wider healthcare system in England. Interviews were undertaken face to face or via telephone. Data were analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: 124 health professionals and 94 patients and carers. 10 service leaders representing a range of national organisations and government departments across England (eg, NHS England and Department of Health) were also interviewed. RESULTS: A range of GPED models are being implemented across the NHS due to different interpretations of national policy and variation in local context. This has resulted in stakeholders and organisations interpreting the aims of GPED differently and anticipating a range of potential impacts. Participants expected GPED to affect the following areas: ED performance indicators; patient outcome and experience; service access; staffing and workforce experience; and resources. Across these ‘domains of influence’, arguments for positive, negative and no effect of GPED were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating whether GPED has been successful will be challenging. However, despite uncertainty surrounding the direction of effect, there was agreement across all stakeholder groups on the areas that GPED would influence. As a result, we propose eight domains of influence that will inform our subsequent mixed-methods evaluation of GPED. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8149439/ /pubmed/34031113 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045453 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/.
spellingShingle Emergency Medicine
Scantlebury, Arabella
Brant, Heather
Anderson, Helen
Leggett, Heather
Salisbury, Chris
Cowlishaw, Sean
Voss, Sarah
Benger, Jonathan Richard
Adamson, Joy
Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
title Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
title_full Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
title_fullStr Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
title_short Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
title_sort potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in england: initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation
topic Emergency Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8149439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34031113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045453
work_keys_str_mv AT scantleburyarabella potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT brantheather potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT andersonhelen potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT leggettheather potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT salisburychris potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT cowlishawsean potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT vosssarah potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT bengerjonathanrichard potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation
AT adamsonjoy potentialimpactsofgeneralpractitionersworkinginoralongsideemergencydepartmentsinenglandinitialqualitativefindingsfromanationalmixedmethodsevaluation