Skip to main content

Evaluation of a general practitioner-led urgent care centre

Demand for urgent care in England continues to rise with increasing numbers of attendances at emergency departments, and the associated growth in unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare costs. With NHS budgets under severe pressure, using emergency services appropriately will be important in an era of financial austerity in healthcare.

Estimates of patients attending with conditions deemed non-urgent or inappropriate for accident and emergency services vary widely, from 6 to 80%. Previous research suggests that general practitioners (GPs) working in emergency departments can reduce referral rates, diagnostic testing, the proportion of patients who become emergency hospital admissions, and inappropriate attendances. However, little of this previous research is recent (much of it was published nearly 20 years ago) and new models of care for GPs working in and alongside emergency departments have now been developed, which remain to be evaluated.

In a paper published in JRSM Short Reports, Shamini Gnani and colleagues describe the methodology for the evaluation of an integrated urgent care model, which was commissioned by NHS Hammersmith and Fulham in 2009 to manage the rising number of urgent attendances at local hospitals. The evaluation includes an examination of the effect of the new model of care on outcomes such as utilization of diagnostic tests and effect on unplanned hospital admissions.

If the new model of care is shown to be both clinically effective and cost-effective, the model and the proposed plan of evaluation will also be helpful to other areas in England that are considering the introduction of similar models of GP-led urgent care to relieve pressure on hospital emergency departments.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...
Post a Comment
Read more