Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a clusterrandomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis John L Campbell, Emily Fletcher, Nicky Britten, Colin Green, Tim A Holt, Valerie Lattimer, David A Richards, Suzanne H Richards, Chris Salisbury, Raff Calitri, Vicky Bowyer, Katherine Chaplin, Rebecca Kandiyali, Jamie Murdoch, Julia Roscoe, Anna Varley, Fiona C Warren, Rod S Taylor SummaryBackground Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the eff ectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care.

Declared competing interests of authors: PA has been a consultant and done research for manufacturers of smoking-cessation products. RW has undertaken research and consultancy for companies that develop and manufacture smoking-cessation medications. He is co-director of the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training and a trustee of the stop-smoking charity, QUIT. He has a share of a patent on a novel nicotine delivery device. All other authors have declared no competing interests.

BackgroundTelephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice.ObjectivesIn comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation.SettingGeneral practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk).ParticipantsPatients requesting same-day consultations.InterventionsPractices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation.Main outcome measuresPrimary – primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary – resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care.ResultsOf 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UCn = 7283; GPTn = 6695; NTn = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UCn = 5572; GPTn = 5171; NTn = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient–clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it.ConclusionsIntroducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundCochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson’s disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson’s disease.DesignLarge pragmatic randomised controlled trial.SettingThirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK.ParticipantsSeven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL).InterventionPatients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services (n = 381) or no therapy (n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation.ResultsData from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.7 to 1.7;p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI –1.5 to 1.5;p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (–0.03, 95% CI –0.07 to –0.002;p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62;p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03;p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI –0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI –£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% –£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events.ConclusionsNHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson’s disease.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

BackgroundChewing gum may stimulate gastrointestinal motility, with beneficial effects on postoperative ileus suggested in small studies. The primary aim of this trial was to determine whether chewing gum reduces length of hospital stay (LOS) after colorectal resection. Secondary aims included examining bowel habit symptoms, complications and healthcare costs.MethodsThis clinical trial allocated patients randomly to standard postoperative care with or without chewing gum (sugar‐free gum for at least 10 min, four times per day on days 1–5) in five UK hospitals. The primary outcome was LOS. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for LOS.ResultsData from 402 of 412 patients, of whom 199 (49·5 per cent) were allocated to chewing gum, were available for analysis. Some 40 per cent of patients in both groups had laparoscopic surgery, and all study sites used enhanced recovery programmes. Median (i.q.r.) LOS was 7 (5–11) days in both groups (P = 0·962); the hazard ratio for use of gum was 0·94 (95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·15; P = 0·557). Participants allocated to gum had worse quality of life, measured using the EuroQoL 5D‐3L, than controls at 6 and 12 weeks after operation (but not on day 4). They also had more complications graded III or above according to the Dindo–Demartines–Clavien classification (16 versus 6 in the group that received standard care) and deaths (11 versus 0), but none was classed as related to gum. No other differences were observed.ConclusionChewing gum did not alter the return of bowel function or LOS after colorectal resection. Registration number: ISRCTN55784442 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).