MacKichan Fiona, Brangan Emer, Wye Lesley, Checkland Kath, Lasserson Daniel, Huntley Alyson, Morris Richard, Tammes Peter, Salisbury Chris, Purdy Sarah
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
BMJ Open. 2017 May 4;7(4):e013816. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013816.
To describe how processes of primary care access influence decisions to seek help at the emergency department (ED).
Ethnographic case study combining non-participant observation, informal and formal interviewing.
Six general practitioner (GP) practices located in three commissioning organisations in England.
Reception areas at each practice were observed over the course of a working week (73 hours in total). Practice documents were collected and clinical and non-clinical staff were interviewed (n=19). Patients with recent ED use, or a carer if aged 16 and under, were interviewed (n=29).
Past experience of accessing GP care recursively informed patient decisions about where to seek urgent care, and difficulties with access were implicit in patient accounts of ED use. GP practices had complicated, changeable systems for appointments. This made navigating appointment booking difficult for patients and reception staff, and engendered a mistrust of the system. Increasingly, the telephone was the instrument of demand management, but there were unintended consequences for access. Some patient groups, such as those with English as an additional language, were particularly disadvantaged, and the varying patient and staff semantic of words like 'urgent' and 'emergency' was exacerbated during telephone interactions. Poor integration between in-hours and out-of-hours care and patient perceptions of the quality of care accessible at their GP practice also informed ED use.
This study provides important insight into the implicit role of primary care access on the use of ED. Discourses around 'inappropriate' patient demand neglect to recognise that decisions about where to seek urgent care are based on experiential knowledge. Simply speeding up access to primary care or increasing its volume is unlikely to alleviate rising ED use. Systems for accessing care need to be transparent, perceptibly fair and appropriate to the needs of diverse patient groups.
描述基层医疗服务的获取过程如何影响患者在急诊科寻求帮助的决策。
采用人种志案例研究,结合非参与式观察、非正式和正式访谈。
位于英格兰三个委托组织的六家全科医生诊所。
在一个工作周内(总计73小时)观察每家诊所的接待区。收集诊所文件,并对临床和非临床工作人员进行访谈(n = 19)。对近期去过急诊科的患者或16岁及以下患者的护理人员进行访谈(n = 29)。
过去获取全科医疗服务的经历反复影响患者关于何处寻求紧急护理的决策,而获取服务的困难在患者关于急诊科就诊的描述中是隐含的。全科医生诊所有复杂多变的预约系统。这使得患者和接待人员难以进行预约,引发了对该系统的不信任。电话越来越成为需求管理的工具,但这对服务获取产生了意想不到的后果。一些患者群体,如那些以英语为第二语言的患者,尤其处于不利地位,在电话沟通中,“紧急”和“急诊”等词汇在患者和工作人员之间的语义差异被进一步放大。工作时间内和非工作时间护理之间缺乏整合,以及患者对其全科医生诊所可获得的护理质量的认知,也影响了急诊科的使用情况。
本研究为基层医疗服务获取对急诊科使用的隐含作用提供了重要见解。围绕“不适当”患者需求的讨论忽视了这样一个事实,即关于何处寻求紧急护理的决策是基于经验知识的。仅仅加快基层医疗服务的获取速度或增加其数量不太可能缓解急诊科使用量的上升。医疗服务获取系统需要透明、明显公平且适合不同患者群体的需求。