Quality monitoring of nurse telephone triage: pilot study

Richards, David; Meakins, Joan; Tawfik, Jane; Godfrey, Lesley; Dutton, Evelyn; Heywood, Philip

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03132.x

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our trial was not powered to inferentially test safety outcomes and we cannot conclusively rule out diff erences between study groups. In view of this factor and of other evidence, 24,25 caution is needed before fi rm conclusions can be drawn from these results, and further studies, possibly including diff erent study methods such as signifi cant event audit, might provide useful additional evidence about the safety of triage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18,19 A UK equivalence trial (in which death within 7 days of contact was the primary outcome) established the safety of out-of-hours primary care NT by experienced nurses using computerised decision support software (CDSS) in comparison with usual care (UC). 5 This is supported by work in the UK by the Richards et al 20 study, in which audio tapes of nurse triage consultations to assess decision-making revealed that decision-making was rated by GP or nurse practitioner review to be mostly good, with minimal risk from poor nurse triage decisions. However, one Swedish study 19,21 noted that nurses often used self-care advice and also over-rode software-determined recommendations on management.…”

Section: Patient Safetymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Richards et al 20 conducted research to assess the quality of information-gathering and accuracy of decision-making by nurses undertaking telephone triage. 20 Independent GP and nurse assessors rated audio-recordings of nurse telephone triage consultations. Out of 218 consultations only 7 (around 3%) were rated as potentially unsafe, suggesting that, overall, nurse telephone triage is safe.…”

Section: Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial)

Campbell

Fletcher

Britten

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…72 57 also reported on appropriateness and 11 of the studies identified here were included in the review by Blank et al 73,[75][76][77][80][81][82]84,88,90 This review identified that triage decisions rated as appropriate varied between 44% and 98%. However, many different definitions of appropriateness were used, which leads to difficulty when trying to compare results.…”

Section: Service Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What evidence is there on the effectiveness of different models of delivering urgent care? A rapid review

Turner

Coster

Chambers

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Quality monitoring of nurse telephone triage: pilot study

Cited by 33 publications

References 22 publications

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial)

What evidence is there on the effectiveness of different models of delivering urgent care? A rapid review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About