4.1 Article

The effectiveness of primary care streaming in emergency departments on decision-making and patient flow and safety-A realist evaluation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY NURSING
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ienj.2022.101155

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Na-tional Insititute of Health Research, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme [15/145/04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effectiveness of primary care streaming in UK Emergency Departments is influenced by mechanisms such as decision-making quality, patient flow, and staff redeployment, while experienced nurses and good teamworking are key contextual factors.
Primary care streaming was implemented in UK Emergency Departments (EDs) to manage an increasing demand for urgent care. We aimed to explore its effectiveness in EDs with different primary care models and identify contexts and mechanisms that influenced outcomes: streaming patients to the most appropriate clinician or service, ED flow and patient safety. Method: We observed streaming and interviewed ED and primary care staff during case study visits to 10 EDs in England. We used realist methodology, synthesising a middle-range theory with our qualitative data to refine and create a set of theories that explain relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Results: Mechanisms contributing to the effectiveness of primary care streaming were: quality of decision-making, patient flow, redeploying staff, managing patients across streams, the implementation of governance protocols, guidance, training, service evaluation and quality improvement efforts. Experienced nurses and good teamworking and strategic and operational management were key contextual factors. Conclusion: We recommend service improvement strategies, operational management, monitoring, evaluation and training to ensure that ED nurses stream patients presenting at an ED seeking urgent care to the most appropriate clinicians for their needs in a safe and efficient manner.

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

4.1
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