Challenges of recruiting emergency department patients to a qualitative study: a thematic analysis of researchers’ experiences

Background: At times of increasing pressure on emergency departments, and the need for research into different models of service delivery, little is known about how to recruit patients for qualitative research in emergency departments. We report from one study which aimed to collect evidence on patients’ experiences of attending emergency departments with different models of using general practitioners, but faced challenges in recruiting patients. This paper aims to identify and reflect on the challenges faced at all stages of patient recruitment, from identifying and inviting eligible patients, consenting them for participation and finally to engaging them in interviews, and make recommendations based on our learning.Methods: A thematic analysis was carried out on field-notes taken during research visits and meeting minutes of discussions to review and improve patient recruitment throughout the study.Results: The following factors influenced the success of patient recruitment in the emergency department setting:complicated or time-consuming electronic health record systems for identifying patients; narrow participant eligibility criteria; limited research nurse support; and lack of face-to-face communication between researchers and eligible patients.Conclusions: This paper adds to the methodological evidence for improving patient recruitment in different settings, with a focus on qualitative research in emergency departments. Our findings have implications for future studies attempting to recruit patients in similar settings

Referral pathways for TIA patients avoiding hospital admission : a scoping review

Objective: To identify the features and effects of a pathway for emergency assessment and referral of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in order to avoid admission to hospital.Design: Scoping review.Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL Web of Science, Scopus.Study selection: Reports of primary research on referral of patients with suspected TIA directly to specialist outpatient services.Data extraction: We screened studies for eligibility and extracted data from relevant studies. Data were analysed to describe setting, assessment and referral processes, treatment, implementation and outcomes.Results: 8 international studies were identified, mostly cohort designs. 4 pathways were used by family doctors and 3 pathways by emergency department physicians. No pathways used by paramedics were found. Referrals were made to specialist clinic either directly or via a 24-hour helpline. Practitioners identified TIA symptoms and risk of further events using a checklist including the ABCD2 tool or clinical assessment. Antiplatelet medication was often given, usually aspirin unless contraindicated. Some patients underwent tests before referral and discharge. 5 studies reported reduced incident of stroke at 90 days, from 6–10% predicted rate to 1.3–2.1% actual rate. Between 44% and 83% of suspected TIA cases in these studies were referred through the pathways.Conclusions: Research literature has focused on assessment and referral by family doctors and ED physicians to reduce hospitalisation of patients with TIA. No pathways for paramedical use were reported. We will use results of this scoping review to inform development of a paramedical referral pathway to be tested in a feasibility trial

What are emergency ambulance services doing to meet the needs of people who call frequently? A national survey of current practice in the United Kingdom

Background Emergency ambulance services are integral to providing a service for those with unplanned urgent and life-threatening health conditions. However, high use of the service by a small minority of patients is a concern. Our objectives were to describe: service-wide and local policies or pathways for people classified as Frequent Caller; call volume; and results of any audit or evaluation. Method We conducted a national survey of current practice in ambulance services in relation to the management of people who call the emergency ambulance service frequently using a structured questionnaire for completion by email and telephone interview. We analysed responses using a descriptive and thematic approach. Results Twelve of 13 UK ambulance services responded. Most services used nationally agreed definitions for ‘Frequent Caller’, with 600–900 people meeting this classification each month. Service-wide policies were in place, with local variations. Models of care varied from within-service care where calls are flagged in the call centre; contact made with callers; and their General Practitioner (GP) with an aim of discouraging further calls, to case management through cross-service, multi-disciplinary team meetings aiming to resolve callers’ needs. Although data were available related to volume of calls and number of callers meeting the threshold for definition as Frequent Caller, no formal audits or evaluations were reported. Conclusions Ambulance services are under pressure to meet challenging response times for high acuity patients. Tensions are apparent in the provision of care to patients who have complex needs and call frequently. Multi-disciplinary case management approaches may help to provide appropriate care, and reduce demand on emergency services. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to inform commissioning, policy or practice development

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process—Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study

Background: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. Aim: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large‐scale multi‐site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. Method: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co‐applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. Results: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over‐professionalizing public contributors. Conclusion: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. Public Contribution: This paper was co‐conceived, co‐planned and co‐authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study

Experiences and views of people who frequently call emergency ambulance services: a qualitative study of UK service users

Introduction: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. Methods: We used a two‐stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third‐sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. Results: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. Conclusion: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. Patient or Public Contribution: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee

Rapid Analgesia for Prehospital hip Disruption (RAPID): findings from a randomised feasibility study

Background In managing hip fracture, effective pain relief before admission to hospital is difficult without risking side effects. Although emergency departments routinely use fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), there has been little evaluation of its use by paramedics before hospital admission. We aimed to assess whether a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate FICB was feasible. Methods Volunteer paramedics used scratchcards to allocate patients with hip fracture at random between FICB and pain relief as usual. Primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life. We also measured adverse events, costs, final diagnosis, length of stay in hospital, pain scores and quality of care and collected qualitative data about acceptability to patients in interviews, and paramedics in focus groups. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on the recruitment of paramedics and patients, delivery of FICB, retrieval of outcome data, safety, acceptability, and diagnostic accuracy of hip fracture. Results We effectively met all progression criteria: we recruited 19 paramedics who randomly allocated 71 patients between trial arms between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017; 57 (31 experimental arm, 26 usual care arm, 80% overall) retrospectively consented to follow-up. Just over half (17/31) of experimental participants received FICB; all others had contraindications, including nine taking anticoagulants. Four of the 31 participants assigned FICB and six of the 26 assigned usual care died within 6 months of hospital admission. Serious adverse events were also similar: 3/35 experimental versus 4/36 in usual care. Paramedics’ recognition of hip fracture had sensitivity of 49/64 (77%) with a positive predictive value of 46/57 (81%). We received quality of life questionnaires for 30 of 49 patients (61%) at 1 month and 12 of 17 (71%) at 6 months. Patient satisfaction was similar: experimental mean 3.4 (n = 20) versus 3.5 (n = 13) for usual care. Conclusions RAPID met all progression criteria within reasonable limits. As equipoise remains, we plan to undertake a fully powered multi-centre trial to test clinical and cost effectiveness of paramedic-administered FICB at the scene of hip fracture

It could be a ‘Golden Goose’: a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation

BACKGROUND: Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients’ risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers’ attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of ‘coherence’ within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. RESULTS: Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. CONCLUSIONS: Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212

Emergency department clinical leads’ experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study

Background To manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads’ experiences of implementing and delivering ‘primary care services’ and ‘emergency medicine services’ where GPs were integrated into the ED team. Methods We conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across ‘primary care services’, ‘emergency medicine services’ and emergency departments without primary care services. Results In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions. Conclusions Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand