George and Fay Yee Center for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 20;12(4):e052850. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052850.
To identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes.
We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool.
From 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre-post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions.
Overall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation.
CRD42020148053.
识别、批判性评价并总结将初级保健专业人员(家庭医生/全科医生(GP)、执业护士(NP)和具有更高权限的护士)在急诊科分诊中,应用于患者流程结果的证据。
我们检索了 Medline(Ovid)、EMBASE(Ovid)、Cochrane 图书馆(Wiley)和 CINAHL(EBSCO)(从建库到 2020 年 1 月)。我们的主要结局是从患者到达至获得医生首次评估(PIA)的时间。次要结局包括分诊时间、未就诊患者比例(LWBS)、急诊科留观时间(ED LOS)、未遵医嘱离开患者比例(LAMA)、再次急诊科就诊次数和患者满意度。两名独立的审查员选择研究,使用国家卫生与保健卓越研究所的质量评估工具提取数据并评价研究质量。
从 23973 条记录中,纳入了 40 项比较研究,包括 10 项随机对照试验(RCT)和 13 项前后对照研究。在分诊时,由 NP(n=14)、GP(n=3)或具有更高权限的护士(n=23)领导的 PHCP 干预措施。在所有研究中,PHCP 主导的干预措施与传统的护士主导的分诊模式进行了比较。干预措施的中位持续时间为 6 个月。研究质量普遍较低(混杂偏倚);7 项 RCT 被归类为中等质量。大多数研究报告称,PHCP 主导的分诊干预措施缩短了 PIA(13/14)、ED LOS(29/30)、LWBS 患者比例(8/10)、分诊时间(3/3)和再次急诊科就诊次数(5/6),并增加了患者满意度(8/10)。两组患者 LAMA 比例无差异(3/3)。来自 RCT(n=8)和其他研究设计的证据表明,PHCP 主导的干预措施显著降低了 ED LOS,有利于 PHCP 主导的干预措施。在广泛实施之前,需要有高质量 RCT 设计的证据。
总体而言,PHCP 主导的分诊干预措施改善了急诊科患者流程指标。无论研究设计如何,ED LOS 均显著下降,有利于 PHCP 主导的干预措施。在广泛实施之前,需要有高质量 RCT 设计的证据。
PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42020148053。