4.6 Article

Access to Primary Care and Visits to Emergency Departments in England: A Cross-Sectional, Population-Based Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066699

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Primary Care and Public Health at Imperial College London from the Northwest London National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research Care (CLAHRC)
  2. Imperial NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
  3. Imperial Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality (CPSSQ)
  4. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2010-21-014] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The number of visits to hospital emergency departments (EDs) in England has increased by 20% since 2007-08, placing unsustainable pressure on the National Health Service (NHS). Some patients attend EDs because they are unable to access primary care services. This study examined the association between access to primary care and ED visits in England. Methods: A cross-sectional, population-based analysis of patients registered with 7,856 general practices in England was conducted, for the time period April 2010 to March 2011. The outcome measure was the number of self-referred discharged ED visits by the registered population of a general practice. The predictor variables were measures of patient-reported access to general practice services; these were entered into a negative binomial regression model with variables to control for the characteristics of patient populations, supply of general practitioners and travel times to health services. Main Result and Conclusion: General practices providing more timely access to primary care had fewer self-referred discharged ED visits per registered patient (for the most accessible quintile of practices, RR=0.898; P<0.001). Policy makers should consider improving timely access to primary care when developing plans to reduce ED utilisation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据