School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Med J Aust. 2013 Jun 17;198(11):612-5. doi: 10.5694/mja12.11754.
To accurately estimate the proportion of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) who may have been suitable to be seen in general practice.
Using data sourced from the Emergency Department Information Systems for the calendar 2013s 2009 to 2011 at three major tertiary hospitals in Perth, Western Australia, we compared four methods for calculating general practice-type patients. These were the validated Sprivulis method, the widely used Australasian College for Emergency Medicine method, a discharge diagnosis method developed by the Tasmanian Department of Human and Health Services, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) method.
General practice-type patient attendances to EDs, estimated using the four methods.
All methods except the AIHW method showed that 10%-12% of patients attending tertiary EDs in Perth may have been suitable for general practice. These attendances comprised 3%-5% of total ED length of stay. The AIHW method produced different results (general practice-type patients accounted for about 25% of attendances, comprising 10%-11% of total ED length of stay). General practice-type patient attendances were not evenly distributed across the week, with proportionally more patients presenting during weekday daytime (08:00-17:00) and proportionally fewer overnight (00:00-08:00). This suggests that it is not a lack of general practitioners that drives patients to the ED, as weekday working hours are the time of greatest GP availability.
The estimated proportion of general practice-type patients attending the EDs of Perth's major hospitals is 10%-12%, and this accounts for < 5% of the total ED length of stay. The AIHW methodology overestimates the actual proportion of general practice-type patient attendances.
准确估计因适宜在全科医生处就诊而到急诊科(ED)就诊的患者比例。
使用 2009 年至 2011 年西澳大利亚珀斯三家主要三级医院的急诊信息系统中的数据,我们比较了计算全科医生类型患者的四种方法。这些方法包括经验证的 Sprivulis 方法、广泛使用的澳大利亚急诊医师学院方法、塔斯马尼亚州人类和健康服务部制定的出院诊断方法以及澳大利亚健康与福利研究所(AIHW)方法。
使用这四种方法估计的 ED 全科医生类型患者就诊量。
除 AIHW 方法外,所有方法均显示,珀斯三级 ED 就诊患者中约有 10%-12%可能适合全科医生治疗。这些就诊量占 ED 总住院时间的 3%-5%。AIHW 方法产生了不同的结果(全科医生类型患者占就诊量的约 25%,占 ED 总住院时间的 10%-11%)。全科医生类型患者就诊量在一周内分布不均,工作日白天(08:00-17:00)就诊患者比例较高,夜间(00:00-08:00)就诊患者比例较低。这表明,驱使患者到 ED 就诊的并不是全科医生的缺乏,因为工作日工作时间是全科医生可用性最高的时间。
珀斯主要医院 ED 就诊的全科医生类型患者比例估计为 10%-12%,占 ED 总住院时间的<5%。AIHW 方法高估了实际的全科医生类型患者就诊比例。