Brant Heather, Voss Sarah, Morton Katherine, Cooper Alison, Edwards Michelle, Price Delyth, Gaughan James, Edwards Adrian, Benger Jonathan
Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Emerg Med J. 2021 Oct;38(10):780-783. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210539. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
In 2017, general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department (GPED), an approach that employs GPs in or alongside the ED to address increasing ED demand, was advocated by the National Health Service in England and supported by capital funding. However, little is known about the models of GPED that have been implemented.
Data were collected at two time points: September 2017 and December 2019, on the GPED model in use (if any) at 163/177 (92%) type 1 EDs in England. Models were categorised according to a taxonomy as 'inside/integrated', 'inside/parallel', 'outside/onsite' or 'outside/offsite'. Multiple data sources used included: on-line surveys, interviews, case study data and publicly available information.
An increase of EDs using GPED was observed from 81% to 95% over the study period. 'Inside/parallel' was the most frequently used model: 30% (44/149) in 2017, rising to 49% (78/159) in 2019. The adoption of 'inside/integrated' models fell from 26% (38/149) to 9% (15/159). Capital funding was received by 87% (142/163) of the EDs sampled. We identified no significant difference between the GPED model adopted and observable characteristics of EDs of annual attendance, 4-hour wait, rurality and deprivation within the population served.
The majority of EDs in England have now adopted GPED. The availability of capital funding to finance structural changes so that separate GP services can be provided may explain the rise in parallel models and the decrease in integrated models. Further research is required to understand the relative effectiveness of the various models of GPED identified.
2017年,英国国家医疗服务体系倡导在急诊科内部或附近配备全科医生(GPED),即让全科医生在急诊科内部或附近工作以应对急诊科日益增长的需求,并提供了资金支持。然而,对于已实施的GPED模式知之甚少。
在两个时间点收集数据:2017年9月和2019年12月,针对英格兰163/177家(92%)1级急诊科所使用的GPED模式(如有)。根据分类法将模式分为“内部/整合型”、“内部/并行型”、“外部/现场型”或“外部/非现场型”。使用的多个数据源包括:在线调查、访谈、案例研究数据和公开可用信息。
在研究期间,使用GPED的急诊科比例从81%增至95%。“内部/并行型”是最常用的模式:2017年为30%(44/149),2019年升至49%(78/159)。“内部/整合型”模式的采用率从26%(38/149)降至9%(15/159)。抽样的急诊科中有87%(142/163)获得了资金支持。我们发现所采用的GPED模式与所服务人群的急诊科年就诊量、4小时等待时间、农村地区和贫困状况等可观察特征之间没有显著差异。
英格兰的大多数急诊科现已采用GPED。用于资助结构调整以便能够提供单独全科医生服务的资金可用性,可能解释了并行模式的增加和整合模式的减少。需要进一步研究以了解所确定的各种GPED模式的相对有效性。