Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35065616›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022

Patients' experiences of attending emergency departments where primary care services are located: qualitative findings from patient and clinician interviews from a realist evaluation.

Delyth Price, Michelle Edwards, Freya Davies, Alison Cooper, Joy McFadzean, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Matthew Cooke, Jeremy Dale, Bridie Angela Evans, Barbara Harrington and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Delyth PricePRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales. priced15@cardiff.ac.uk.
Michelle EdwardsDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Freya DaviesPRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Alison CooperPRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Joy McFadzeanDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Andrew Carson-StevensPRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Matthew CookeWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jeremy DaleWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bridie Angela EvansSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Barbara HarringtonPRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Julie HepburnPRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Aloysius Niroshan SiriwardenaSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Helen SnooksSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales.
Adrian EdwardsPRIME Centre Wales, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales.
Cardiff University · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient experience is an important outcome and indicator of healthcare quality, and patient reported experiences are key to improving quality of care. While patient experience in emergency departments (EDs) has been reported in research, there is limited evidence about patients' specific experiences with primary care services located in or alongside EDs. We aim to identify theories about patient experience and acceptability of being streamed to a primary care clinician in an ED.

methodsUsing theories from a rapid realist review as a basis, we interviewed 24 patients and 106 staff members to generate updated theories about patient experience and acceptability of streaming to primary care services in EDs. Feedback from 56 stakeholders, including clinicians, policymakers and patient and public members, as well as observations at 13 EDs, also contributed to the development of these theories, which we present as a programme theory.

resultsWe found that patients had no expectations or preferences for which type of clinician they were seen by, and generally found being streamed to a primary care clinician in the ED acceptable. Clinicians and patients reported that patients generally found primary care streaming acceptable if they felt their complaint was dealt with suitably, in a timely manner, and when clinicians clearly communicated the need for investigations, and how these contributed to decision-making and treatment plans.

conclusionsFrom our findings, we have developed a programme theory to demonstrate that service providers can expect that patients will be generally satisfied with their experience of being streamed to, and seen by, primary care clinicians working in these services. Service providers should consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of implementing primary care services at their ED. If primary care services are implemented, clear communication is needed between staff and patients, and patient feedback should be sought.

Indexed as

CommunicationEmergency Service, HospitalHumansPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareEmergency departmentPatient experiencePrimary care servicesQualitativeRealist evaluation

Identifiers

PMID35065616
PMCPMC8783419
OpenAlexW4207067144

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.