Skip to main content

Most patients requiring urgent care can be managed by a GP or emergency nurse practitioner

Charing Cross and Hammersmith Hospitals’ accident and emergency services will be reconfigured under current plans for reconfiguring health services in North West London. Both hospitals currently have a GP-led urgent care centre co-located with an emergency department. Patients who refer themselves for emergency care are unable to access the emergency department without being seen by a GP or emergency nurse practitioner in an urgent care centre. We present early data on the evaluation of the two the urgent care centres that was published in a letter in the BMJ.

From 1 October 2009 to 31 December 2012, 282 947 unplanned attendances occurred at these centres, 63.2% of them at Charing Cross Hospital. The annual number of attendances increased by 9.4% (7911) from 2010 to 2012 (92 303 in 2012). Most attending patients (85.3%) were registered with a general practice, and 47.7% of attendances occurred outside of general practice core hours. The most common category of primary diagnosis was “injury” (24.1%).

Patients were referred to the co-located emergency departments in 18.0% of attendances (13.4% self referred; 4.6% referred by GP). The risk of referral in patients aged 65 years and over (33.2% of attendances) was significantly greater than in those aged 0 to 15 (8.2%), 16 to 24 (12.9%), 25 to 49 (16.5%), and 50 to 64 years (25.9%).

In conclusion, most patients attending urgent care centres can be managed by a GP or emergency nurse practitioner. A protocol for the evaluation can be viewed in JRSM Open. Full results from the evaluation will be available later in 2014 or in 2015. 

Comments

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...

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...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...