Drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency and urgent care: the DEUCE mixed-methods study
Authors: O’Cathain Alicia , Knowles Emma , Long Jaqui , Connell Janice , Bishop-Edwards Lindsey , Simpson Rebecca , Coster Joanne , Abouzeid Linda , Bennett Shan , Croot Elizabeth , Dickson Jon M , Goodacre Steve , Hirst Enid , Jacques Richard , Phillips Miranda , Turnbull Joanne , Turner Janette 
Published: March 2020

Background

There is widespread concern about the pressure on emergency and urgent services in the UK, particularly emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments. A mismatch between supply and demand has led to interest in what can be termed ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of services. This is defined by the research team in this study as ‘patients attending services with problems that are classified as suitable for treatment by a lower urgency service or self-care’. This is a challenging issue to consider because patients may face difficulties when deciding the best action to take, and different staff may make different judgements about what constitutes a legitimate reason for service use.

Objectives

To identify the drivers of ‘clinically unnecessary’ use of emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments from patient and population perspectives.

Design

This was a sequential mixed-methods study with three components: a realist review; qualitative interviews (n = 48) and focus groups (n = 3) with patients considered ‘clinically unnecessary’ users of these services, focusing on parents of young children, young adults and people in areas of social deprivation; and a population survey (n = 2906) to explore attitudes towards seeking care for unexpected, non-life-threatening health problems and to identify the characteristics of someone with a tendency for ‘clinically unnecessary’ help-seeking.

Results

From the results of the three study components, we found that multiple, interacting drivers influenced individuals’ decision-making. Drivers could be grouped into symptom related, patient related and health service related. Symptom-related drivers were anxiety or need for reassurance, which were caused by uncertainty about the meaning or seriousness of symptoms; concern about the impact of symptoms on daily activities/functioning; and a need for immediate relief of intolerable symptoms, particularly pain. Patient-related drivers were reduced coping capacity as a result of illness, stress or limited resources; fear of consequences when responsible for another person’s health, particularly a child; and the influence of social networks. Health service-related drivers were perceptions or previous experiences of services, particularly the attractions of emergency departments; a lack of timely access to an appropriate general practitioner appointment; and compliance with health service staff’s advice.

Limitations

Difficulty recruiting patients who had used the ambulance service to the interviews and focus groups meant that we were not able to add as much as we had anticipated to the limited evidence base regarding this service.

Conclusions

Patients use emergency ambulances, emergency departments and same-day general practitioner appointments when they may not need the level of clinical care provided by these services for a multitude of inter-related reasons that sometimes differ by population subgroup. Some of these reasons relate to health services, in terms of difficulty accessing general practice leading to use of emergency departments, and to population-learnt behaviour concerning the positive attributes of emergency departments, rather than to patient characteristics. Social circumstances, such as complex and stressful lives, influence help-seeking for all three services. Demand may be ‘clinically unnecessary’ but completely understandable when service accessibility and patients’ social circumstances are considered.

Future work

There is a need to evaluate interventions, including changing service configuration, strengthening general practice and addressing the stressors that have an impact on people’s coping capacity. Different subgroups may require different interventions.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017056273.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.