Mary Halter

Emergency care of older people who fall: a missed opportunity

Introduction: A high number of emergency (999) calls are made for older people who fall, with many patients not subsequently conveyed to hospital. Ambulance crews do not generally have protocols or training to leave people at home, and systems for referral are rare. The quality and safety of current practice is explored in this study, in which for the first time, the short-term outcomes of older people left at home by emergency ambulance crews after a fall are described. Results will inform the development of care for this population. Methods: Emergency ambulance data in London were analysed for patterns of attendance and call outcomes in 2003–4. All older people who were attended by emergency ambulance staff after a fall in September and October 2003, within three London areas, were identified. Those who were not conveyed to hospital were followed up; healthcare contacts and deaths within the following 2 weeks were identified. Results: During 2003–4, 8% of all 999 calls in London were for older people who had fallen (n = 60 064), with 40% not then conveyed to hospital. Of 2151 emergency calls attended in the study areas during September and October 2003, 534 were for people aged ⩾65 who had fallen. Of these, 194 (36.3%) were left at home. 86 (49%) people made healthcare contacts within the 2-week follow-up period, with 83 (47%) people calling 999 again at least once. There was an increased risk of death (standard mortality ratio 5.4) and of hospital admission (4.7) compared with the general population of the same age in London. Comment: The rate of subsequent emergency healthcare contacts and increased risk of death and hospitalisation for older people who fall and who are left at home after a 999 call are alarming. Further research is needed to explore appropriate models for delivery of care for this vulnerable group.

On-scene alternatives for emergency ambulance crews attending patients who do not need to travel to the accident and emergency department: a review of the literature

With rising demand and recognition of the variety of cases attended by emergency ambulance crews, services have been considering alternative ways of providing non-urgent care. This paper describes and appraises the research literature concerning on-scene alternatives to conveyance to an emergency department, focusing on the: (1) profile and outcomes of patients attended but not conveyed by emergency crews; (2) triage ability of crews; (3) effectiveness and safety of protocols that allow crews to convey patients to alternative receiving units or to self care. The literature search was conducted through standard medical databases, supplemented with manual searches. Very few “live” studies were identified, and fewer still that included a control group. Findings indicated a complex area, with the introduction of protocols allowing crews to leave patients at scene carrying clinical risk. Robust research evidence concerning alternatives to current emergency care models is needed urgently to inform service and practice development.

Towards primary care for non-serious 999 callers: results of a controlled study of “Treat and Refer” protocols for ambulance crews

Objective: To develop and evaluate “Treat and Refer” protocols for ambulance crews, allowing them to leave patients at the scene with onward referral or self-care advice as appropriate. Methods: Crew members from one ambulance station were trained to use the treatment protocols. Processes and outcomes of care for patients attended by trained crews were compared with similar patients attended by crews from a neighbouring station. Pre-hospital records were collected for all patients. Records of any emergency department and primary care contacts during the 14 days following the call were collected for non-conveyed patients who were also followed up by postal questionnaire. Results: Twenty three protocols were developed which were expected to cover over 75% of patients left at the scene by the attending crew. There were 251 patients in the intervention arm and 537 in the control arm. The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex and condition category but intervention cases were more likely to have been attended during daytime hours than at night. There was no difference in the proportion of patients left at the scene in the intervention and control arms; the median job cycle time was longer for intervention group patients. Protocols were reported as having been used in 101 patients (40.2%) in the intervention group; 17 of the protocols were recorded as having been used at least once during the study. Clinical documentation was generally higher in the intervention group, although a similar proportion of patients in both groups had no clinical assessments recorded. 288 patients were left at the scene (93 in the intervention group, 195 in the control group). After excluding those who refused to travel, there were three non-conveyed patients in each group who were admitted to hospital within 14 days of the call who were judged to have been left at home inappropriately. A higher proportion of patients in the intervention arm reported satisfaction with the service and advice provided. Conclusions: “Treat and Refer” protocols did not increase the number of patients left at home but were used by crews and were acceptable to patients. The protocols increased job cycle time and some safety issues were identified. Their introduction is complex, and the extent to which the content of the protocols, decision support and training can be refined needs further study.

Complexity of the decision-making process of ambulance staff for assessment and referral of older people who have fallen: a qualitative study

Background Older people who fall commonly present to the emergency ambulance service, and approximately 40% are not conveyed to the emergency department (ED), despite an historic lack of formal training for such decisions. This study aimed to understand the decision-making processes of emergency ambulance staff with older people who have fallen. Methods During 2005 ambulance staff in London tested a clinical assessment tool for use with the older person who had fallen. Documented use of the tool was low. Following the trial, 12 staff participated in semistructured interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was carried out. Results The interviews revealed a similar assessment and decision-making process among participants: Prearrival: forming an early opinion from information from the emergency call. Initial contact: assessing the need for any immediate action and establishing a rapport. Continuing assessment: gathering and assimilating medical and social information. Making a conveyance decision: negotiation, referral and professional defence, using professional experience and instinct. Conclusions An assessment process was described that highlights the complexity of making decisions about whether or not to convey older people who fall and present to the emergency ambulance service, and a predominance of informal decision-making processes. The need for support for ambulance staff in this area was highlighted, generating a significant challenge to those with education roles in the ambulance service. Further research is needed to look at how new care pathways, which offer an alternative to the ED may influence decision making around non-conveyance.

Gaps between policy, protocols and practice: a qualitative study of the views and practice of emergency ambulance staff concerning the care of patients with non-urgent needs

Aim: To describe emergency ambulance crews’ views about (1) how they make decisions on whether to convey patients to hospital; (2) an intervention enabling them to triage patients to non-conveyance; and (3) their experience of using new protocols for undertaking such triage. Methods: Two focus groups were held at the outset of an evaluation of Treat and Refer (T&R) protocols: one with staff based at an ambulance station who were to implement the new service (intervention station), and the other with staff from a neighbouring station who would be continuing their normal practice during the study (control station). A third session was held with staff from the intervention station following training and 3 months’ experience of protocol usage. Results: Before the introduction of the T&R protocols, crews reported experience, intuition, training, time of call during shift, patient preference, and home situation as influencing their decisions concerning conveyance. Crews were positive about changing practice but foresaw difficulties with advising patients who wanted to go to hospital, and with referral to other agencies. Following experience of T&R protocol use, crews felt they had needed more training than had been provided. Some felt their practice and job satisfaction had improved. Problems with referral and with persuading some patients that they did not need to go to hospital were discussed. There was consensus that the initiative should be introduced across the service. Conclusions: With crews generally positive about this intervention, an opportunity to tackle this difficult area of emergency care now exists. This study has, however, highlighted the complexity of the change in practice and service delivery, and professional and organisational constraints that need to be considered.

The contribution of physician assistants in primary care: a systematic review

BackgroundPrimary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs). Objective: This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010. Eligibility criteria: PAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care.Results2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors. Process: the majority of PAs’ workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results. Outcomes: acceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time.Limitations: identification of a broad range of studies examining ‘contribution’ made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable.ConclusionsThe research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs’ contribution to the international primary care workforce.

Physician associates and GPs in primary care: a comparison

Background Physician associates [PAs] (also known as physician assistants) are new to the NHS and there is little evidence concerning their contribution in general practice. Aim This study aimed to compare outcomes and costs of same-day requested consultations by PAs with those of GPs. Design and setting An observational study of 2086 patient records presenting at same-day appointments in 12 general practices in England. Method PA consultations were compared with those of GPs. Primary outcome was re-consultation within 14 days for the same or linked problem. Secondary outcomes were processes of care. Results There were no significant differences in the rates of re-consultation (rate ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 1.79, P = 0.25). There were no differences in rates of diagnostic tests ordered (1.08, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.30, P = 0.44), referrals (0.95, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.43, P = 0.80), prescriptions issued (1.16, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.53, P = 0.31), or patient satisfaction (1.00, 95% CI = 0.42 to 2.36, P = 0.99). Records of initial consultations of 79.2% (n = 145) of PAs and 48.3% (n = 99) of GPs were judged appropriate by independent GPs (P<0.001). The adjusted average PA consultation was 5.8 minutes longer than the GP consultation (95% CI = 2.46 to 7.1; P<0.001); cost per consultation was GBP £6.22, (US

Physician assistants in English general practice: a qualitative study of employers' viewpoints

10.15) lower (95% CI = −7.61 to −2.46, P<0.001). Conclusion The processes and outcomes of PA and GP consultations for same-day appointment patients are similar at a lower consultation cost. PAs offer a potentially acceptable and efficient addition to the general practice workforce.

Patients' experiences of care provided by emergency care practitioners and traditional ambulance practitioners : a survey from the London Ambulance Service

Objective: Effective use of staff is a major aim in all health-care systems both to maximize their impact and to minimize costs. In England, a few general practitioners (GPs) have been recruiting physician assistants (PAs) to work in their practices, independent of any pilot schemes. Our objective was to study the motivation of GPs and practice managers who employed PAs and to understand the factors that sustained their employment. Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, analysed thematically, was carried out with 13 GPs and three practice managers from 15 general practices employing PAs in five areas of England. Results: All practices were employing USA-trained PAs. Motivating factors for their employment included increasing the general practice capacity to manage patient demand within government targets for access, broaden the skill-mix in the practice team and financial considerations. The issues that needed to be taken into account in employing PAs included: the requirement for medical supervision; the PAs current lack of a regulatory framework and prescribing authority; and some patients’ lack of familiarity with the concept of the PA. Conclusions: General practice employers view PAs as a positive addition to a mixed skill team for meeting patient demand within a practices finances. There is a need to develop stronger governance and regulatory frameworks for this emerging profession.

Support and assessment for fall emergency referrals (SAFER 2) research protocol: cluster randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess and refer to appropriate community-based care

Patients’ experiences after receiving care from emergency care practitioners (ECPs) were compared with those after receiving care from traditional ambulance practitioners using a postal questionnaire distributed to 1658 patients in London; 888 responses were received. The responses of patients receiving care from both groups were similar and largely positive. But in two areas (“thoroughness of assessment” and “explaining what would happen next”), the care provided by ECPs was experienced as considerably better. These differences were partly explained by considerably fewer patients from ECPs being conveyed to the emergency department, suggesting that empowering ECPs to explore and explain alternatives to the emergency department improves patient satisfaction.