Foster J, Jessopp L, Chakraborti S
Immediate Access Project, Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, London, UK.
Emerg Med J. 2003 May;20(3):285-8. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.3.285.
To provide an objective assessment on callers' compliance with NHS Direct advice to attend an accident and emergency (A&E) department.
A representative three week period in May 2000 was investigated. During this period there were no health scares, major health campaigns, or bank holidays that may have affected the call rate. NHS Direct callers who were advised to attend A&E were identified. Data from the four A&E departments for the same three week period and two additional days were searched and matched to NHS Direct data by surname, date of birth, and post code. This process created three groups: (1) callers triaged to A&E who attended, (2) callers triaged to A&E who did not attend, (3) callers with different triage outcome who attended A&E. The age, sex, relationship of caller, time of call, and distance to nearest A&E were compared for groups (1) and (2).
Just less than two third of callers triaged to A&E attended with the same presenting complaint. There were no statistically significant differences between group (1) and (2) in terms of age, sex, relationship of caller, time of call, and distance to A&E. A small number of callers (2.4%) were identified as being given other advice and attending A&E for the same presenting complaint. This group took significantly longer to attend A&E than group (1) (chi(2) =139.01, df=7, p<0.001).
Assessing levels of compliance is difficult. These findings suggest that NHS Direct may have comparatively high levels of compliance compared with other similar services. However, using the single triage outcome as the means of identifying the advice given may oversimplify the range of possible advice given. The delay in attending A&E for the group of callers who were given other advice may indicate they had tried other actions. Further larger studies are needed to assess the appropriateness of referrals through investigation of clinical outcomes.
对致电者遵循国民保健署直接建议前往事故与急救(A&E)部门就诊的情况进行客观评估。
对2000年5月具有代表性的三周时间进行调查。在此期间,没有可能影响呼叫率的健康恐慌、重大健康宣传活动或银行假日。确定了被建议前往A&E就诊的国民保健署直接致电者。搜索了同一三周时间以及另外两天内四个A&E部门的数据,并通过姓氏、出生日期和邮政编码将其与国民保健署直接数据进行匹配。这一过程产生了三组:(1)被分诊至A&E且就诊的致电者;(2)被分诊至A&E但未就诊的致电者;(3)分诊结果不同但前往A&E就诊的致电者。比较了组(1)和组(2)在年龄、性别、致电者关系、致电时间以及到最近A&E的距离方面的情况。
被分诊至A&E的致电者中,不到三分之二的人以相同的主诉就诊。组(1)和组(2)在年龄、性别、致电者关系、致电时间以及到A&E的距离方面没有统计学上的显著差异。一小部分致电者(2.4%)被确定接受了其他建议并因相同的主诉前往A&E就诊。这一组前往A&E就诊的时间明显长于组(1)(卡方检验=139.01,自由度=7,p<0.001)。
评估依从性水平很困难。这些发现表明,与其他类似服务相比,国民保健署直接服务可能具有相对较高的依从性水平。然而,将单一的分诊结果作为确定所提供建议的方式可能会过度简化所提供建议的可能范围。接受其他建议的那组致电者前往A&E就诊的延迟可能表明他们尝试了其他措施。需要进一步开展更大规模的研究,通过调查临床结果来评估转诊的适宜性。