Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33975573›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

What if something happens tonight? A qualitative study of primary care physicians' perspectives on an alternative to hospital admittance.

Vivian Nystrøm, Hilde Lurås, Patrik Midlöv, Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vivian NystrømDepartment of Health and Welfare, Østfold University College, (PB) 700, 1757, Halden, Norway. vivian.nystrom@hiof.no.
Hilde LuråsHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, (PB) 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.
Patrik MidlövCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, (PB) 50332, 202 13, Malmö, Sweden.
Ann-Chatrin Linqvist LeonardsenDepartment of Health and Welfare, Østfold University College, (PB) 700, 1757, Halden, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to demographic changes, hospital emergency departments in many countries are overcrowded. Internationally, several primary healthcare models have been introduced as alternatives to hospitalisation. In Norway, municipal acute wards (MAWs) have been implemented as primary care wards that provide observation and medical treatment for 24 h. The intention is to replace hospitalisation for patients who require acute admission but not specialist healthcare services. The aim of this study was to explore primary care physicians' (PCPs') perspectives on admission to a MAW as an alternative to hospitalisation.

methodsThe study had a qualitative design, including interviews with 21 PCPs in a county in southeastern Norway. Data were analysed with a thematic approach.

resultsThe PCPs described uncertainty when referring patients to the MAW because of the fewer diagnostic opportunities there than in the hospital. Admission of patients to the MAW was assumed to be unsafe for both PCPs, MAW nurses and physicians. The PCPs assumed that medical competence was lower at the MAW than in the hospital, which led to scepticism about whether their tentative diagnoses would be reconsidered if needed and whether a deterioration of the patients' condition would be detected. When referring patients to a MAW, the PCPs experienced disagreements with MAW personnel about the suitability of the patient. The PCPs emphasised the importance of patients' and relatives' participation in decisions about the level of treatment. Nevertheless, such participation was not always possible, especially when patients' wishes conflicted with what PCPs considered professionally sound.

conclusionsThe PCPs reported concerns regarding the use of MAWs as an alternative to hospitalisation. These concerns were related to fewer diagnostic opportunities, lower medical expertise throughout the day, uncertainty about the selection of patients and challenges with user participation. Consequently, these concerns had an impact on how the PCPs utilised MAW services.

Indexed as

Physicians, Primary CareAttitude of Health PersonnelHospitalsHumansNorwayPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchGeneral practitionerHealth services researchInterviewPrimary care physiciansPrimary healthcareQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID33975573
PMCPMC8112060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.