Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Primary Care In The Accident And Emergency Department: II. Comparison Of General Practitioners And Hospital Doctors

Jeremy Dale, Judith Green, Fiona Reid, Edward Glucksman and Roger Higgs
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Vol. 311, No. 7002 (Aug. 12, 1995), pp. 427-430
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29728384
Page Count: 4
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Primary Care In The Accident And Emergency Department: II. Comparison Of General Practitioners And Hospital Doctors
Preview not available

Abstract

Objective—To compare the process and outcome of "primary care" consultations undertaken by senior house officers, registrars, and general practitioners in an accident and emergency department. Design—Prospective, controlled intervention study. Setting—A busy, inner city accident and emergency department in south London. Subjects—Patients treated during a stratified random sample of 419 three hour sessions between June 1989 and May 1990 assessed at nurse triage as presenting with problems that could be treated in a primary care setting. 1702 of these patients were treated by sessionally employed local general practitioners, 2382 by senior house officers, and 557 by registrars. Main outcome measures—Process variables: laboratory and radiographic investigations, prescriptions, and referrals; outcome variables: results of investigations. Results—Primary care consultations made by accident and emergency medical staff resulted in greater utilisation of investigative, outpatient, and specialist services than those made by general practitioners. For example, the odds ratios for patients receiving radiography were 2.78 (95% confidence interval 2.32 to 3.34) for senior house officer v general practitioner consultations and 2.37 (1.84 to 3.06) for registrars v general practitioners. For referral to hospital specialist on call teams or outpatient departments v discharge to the community the odds ratios were 2.88 (2.39 to 3.47) for senior house officers v general practitioners and 2.57 (1.98 to 3.35) for registrars v general practitioners. Conclusion—Employing general practitioners in accident and emergency departments to manage patients with primary care needs seems to result in reduced rates of investigations, prescriptions, and referrals. This suggests important benefits in terms of resource utilisation, but the impact on patient outcome and satisfaction needs to be considered further.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
427
    427
  • Thumbnail: Page 
428
    428
  • Thumbnail: Page 
429
    429
  • Thumbnail: Page 
430
    430