ObjectivesRising demand for emergency and urgent care services is well documented, as are the consequences, for example, emergency department (ED) crowding, increased costs, pressure on services, and waiting times. Multiple factors have been suggested to explain why demand is increasing, including an aging population, rising number of people with multiple chronic conditions, and behavioral changes relating to how people choose to access health services. The aim of this systematic mapping review was to bring together published research from urgent and emergency care settings to identify drivers that underpin patient decisions to access urgent and emergency care.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted across Medline (via Ovid SP), EMBASE (via Ovid), The Cochrane Library (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via the Web of Knowledge), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; via EBSCOhost). Peer‐reviewed studies written in English that reported reasons for accessing or choosing emergency or urgent care services and were published between 1995 and 2016 were included. Data were extracted and reasons for choosing emergency and urgent care were identified and mapped. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and findings were reported qualitatively using framework‐based narrative synthesis.ResultsThirty‐eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were set in the United Kingdom (39.4%) or the United States (34.2%) and reported results relating to ED (68.4%). Thirty‐nine percent of studies utilized qualitative or mixed research designs. Our thematic analysis identified six broad themes that summarized reasons why patients chose to access ED or urgent care. These were access to and confidence in primary care; perceived urgency, anxiety, and the value of reassurance from emergency‐based services; views of family, friends, or healthcare professionals; convenience (location, not having to make appointment, and opening hours); individual patient factors (e.g., cost); and perceived need for emergency medical services or hospital care, treatment, or investigations.ConclusionsWe identified six distinct reasons explaining why patients choose to access emergency and urgent care services: limited access to or confidence in primary care; patient perceived urgency; convenience; views of family, friends, or other health professionals; and a belief that their condition required the resources and facilities offered by a particular healthcare provider. There is a need to examine demand from a whole system perspective to gain better understanding of demand for different parts of the emergency and urgent care system and the characteristics of patients within each sector.

Telephone triage services can offer appropriate decisions and decisions that callers comply with. However, the association between the appropriateness of a decision and subsequent compliance requires further investigation and further consideration needs to be given to the minority of calls which are inappropriately managed. We suggest that a definition of appropriateness incorporating both accuracy and adequacy of triage decision should be encouraged.

No abstract

Background:Demand is labelled 'clinically unnecessary' when patients do not need the levels of clinical care or urgency provided by the service they contact.Objective: To identify programme theories which seek to explain why patients make use of emergency and urgent care that is subsequently judged as clinically unnecessary.Design: Realist review. Methods:Papers from four recent systematic reviews of demand for emergency and urgent care, and an updated search to January 2017. Programme theories developed using Context-Mechanism-Outcome chains identified from 32 qualitative studies and tested by exploring their relationship with existing health behaviour theories and 29 quantitative studies.Results: Six mechanisms, based on ten interrelated programme theories, explained why patients made clinically unnecessary use of emergency and urgent care: (a) need for risk minimization, for example heightened anxiety due to previous experiences of traumatic events; (b) need for speed, for example caused by need to function normally to attend to responsibilities; (c) need for low treatment-seeking burden, caused by inability to cope due to complex or stressful lives; (d) compliance, because family or health services had advised such action; (e) consumer satisfaction, because emergency departments were perceived to offer the desired tests and expertise when contrasted with primary care; and (f) frustration, where patients had attempted and failed to obtain a general practitioner appointment in the desired timeframe. Multiple mechanisms could operate for an individual. Conclusions:Rather than only focusing on individuals' behaviour, interventions could include changes to health service configuration and accessibility, and societal changes to increase coping ability. K E Y W O R D Semergency medicine, heath care seeking behaviour, patients, urgent care

BackgroundIn 2013 NHS England set out its strategy for the development of an emergency and urgent care system that is more responsive to patients’ needs, improves outcomes and delivers clinically excellent and safe care. Knowledge about the current evidence base on models for provision of safe and effective urgent care, and the gaps in evidence that need to be addressed, can support this process.ObjectiveThe purpose of the evidence synthesis is to assess the nature and quality of the existing evidence base on delivery of emergency and urgent care services and identify gaps that require further primary research or evidence synthesis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Web of Science.MethodsWe have conducted a rapid, framework-based, evidence synthesis approach. Five separate reviews linked to themes in the NHS England review were conducted. One general and five theme-specific database searches were conducted for the years 1995–2014. Relevant systematic reviews and additional primary research papers were included and narrative assessment of evidence quality was conducted for each review.ResultsThe review was completed in 6 months. In total, 45 systematic reviews and 102 primary research studies have been included across all five reviews. The key findings for each review are as follows: (1) demand – there is little empirical evidence to explain increases in demand for urgent care; (2) telephone triage – overall, these services provide appropriate and safe decision-making with high patient satisfaction, but the required clinical skill mix and effectiveness in a system is unclear; (3) extended paramedic roles have been implemented in various health settings and appear to be successful at reducing the number of transports to hospital, making safe decisions about the need for transport and delivering acceptable, cost-effective care out of hospital; (4) emergency department (ED) – the evidence on co-location of general practitioner services with EDs indicates that there is potential to improve care. The attempt to summarise the evidence about wider ED operations proved to be too complex and further focused reviews are needed; and (5) there is no empirical evidence to support the design and development of urgent care networks.LimitationsAlthough there is a large body of evidence on relevant interventions, much of it is weak, with only very small numbers of randomised controlled trials identified. Evidence is dominated by single-site studies, many of which were uncontrolled.ConclusionsThe evidence gaps of most relevance to the delivery of services are (1) a requirement for more detailed understanding and mapping of the characteristics of demand to inform service planning; (2) assessment of the current state of urgent care network development and evaluation of the effectiveness of different models; and (3) expanding the current evidence base on existing interventions that are viewed as central to delivery of the NHS England plan by assessing the implications of increasing interventions at scale and measuring costs and system impact. It would be prudent to develop a national picture of existing pilot projects or interventions in development to support decisions about research commissioning.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

Background In England in 2015/16, ambulance services responded to nearly 11 million calls. Ambulance Quality Indicators show that half of the patients receiving a response by telephone or face to face were not conveyed to an emergency department. A total of 11% of patients received telephone advice only. A total of 38% of patients were sent an ambulance but were not conveyed to an emergency department. For the 10 large ambulance services in England, rates of calls ending in telephone advice varied between 5% and 17%. Rates of patients who were sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department varied between 23% and 51%. Overall non-conveyance rates varied between 40% and 68%. Objective To explain variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services. Design A sequential mixed methods study with five work packages. Setting Ten of the 11 ambulance services serving > 99% of the population of England. Methods (1) A qualitative interview study of managers and paramedics from each ambulance service, as well as ambulance commissioners (totalling 49 interviews undertaken in 2015). (2) An analysis of 1 month of routine data from each ambulance service (November 2014). (3) A qualitative study in three ambulance services with different published rates of calls ending in telephone advice (120 hours of observation and 20 interviews undertaken in 2016). (4) An analysis of routine data from one ambulance service linked to emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data (6 months of 2013). (5) A substudy of non-conveyance for people calling 999 with breathing problems. Results Interviewees in the qualitative study identified factors that they perceived to affect non-conveyance rates. Where possible, these perceptions were tested using routine data. Some variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services was likely to be due to differences in the way rates were calculated by individual services, particularly in relation to telephone advice. Rates for the number of patients sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department were associated with patient-level factors: age, sex, deprivation, time of call, reason for call, urgency level and skill level of attending crew. However, variation between ambulance services remained after adjustment for patient-level factors. Variation was explained by ambulance service-level factors after adjustment for patient-level factors: the percentage of calls attended by advanced paramedics [odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.07], the perception of ambulance service staff and commissioners that advanced paramedics were established and valued within the workforce of an ambulance service (odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.33), and the perception of ambulance service staff and commissioners that senior management was risk averse regarding non-conveyance within an ambulance service (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). Limitations Routine data from ambulance services are complex and not consistently collected or analysed by ambulance services, thus limiting the utility of comparative analyses. Conclusions Variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services in England could be reduced by addressing variation in the types of paramedics attending calls, variation in how advanced paramedics are used and variation in perceptions of the risk associated with non-conveyance within ambulance service management. Linking routine ambulance data with emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data for all ambulance services in the UK would allow comparison of the safety and appropriateness of their different non-conveyance rates. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract

Objectives: Emergency ambulance services do not transport all patients to hospital. International literature reports non-transport rates ranging from 3.7-93.7%. In 2017, 38% of the 11 million calls received by ambulance services in England were attended by ambulance but not transported to an Emergency Department (ED). A further 10% received clinical advice over the telephone. Little is known about what happens to patients following a nontransport decision. We aimed to investigate what happens to patients following an emergency ambulance telephone call that resulted in a non-transport decision, using a linked routine data-set. Methods: Six-months individual patient level data from one ambulance service in England, linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and national mortality data, were used to identify subsequent health events (ambulance re-contact, ED attendance, hospital admission, death) within 3 days (primary analysis) and 7 days (secondary analysis) of an ambulance call ending in nontransport to hospital. Non-clinical staff used a priority dispatch system e.g. Medical Priority Dispatch System to prioritize calls for ambulance dispatch. Non-transport to ED was determined by ambulance crew members at scene or clinicians at the emergency operating center when an ambulance was not dispatched (telephone advice). Results: The data linkage rate was 85% for patients who were discharged at scene (43,108/50,894). After removal of deaths associated with end of life care (N ¼ 312), 9% (3,861/42,796) re-contacted the ambulance service, 12.6% (5,412/42,796) attended ED, 6.3% (2,694/42,796) were admitted to hospital, and 0.3% (129/42,796) died within 3 days of the call. Rates were higher for events occurring within 7 days. For example, 12% re-contacted the ambulance service, 16.1% attended ED, 9.3% were admitted to hospital, and 0.5% died. The linkage rate for telephone advice calls was low because ambulance services record less information about these patients (24% 2,514/10,634). A sensitivity analysis identified a range of subsequent event rates: 2.5-10.5% of patients were admitted to hospital and 0.06-0.24% of patient died within 3 days of the call. Conclusions: Most non-transported patients did not have subsequent health events. Deaths after non-transport are an infrequent event that could be selected for more detailed review of individual cases, to facilitate learning and improvement.