A qualitative study exploring the factors influencing admission to hospital from the Emergency

Objective: The number of emergency admissions to hospital in England and Wales has risen sharply in recent years and is a matter of concern to clinicians, policymakers and patients alike. However, the factors that influence this decision are poorly understood. We aimed to ascertain how non-clinical factors can affect hospital admission rates. Method: We conducted semi-structured interviews with twenty-one participants from three acute hospital trusts. Participants included eleven Emergency Department (ED) doctors, three ED nurses, three managers and four inpatient doctors. A range of seniority was represented among these roles. Interview questions were developed from key themes identified in a theoretical framework developed by the authors to explain admission decision-making. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed by two independent researchers using framework analysis. Findings: Departmental factors such as busyness, time of day and levels of senior support were identified as nonclinical influences upon a decision to admit rather than discharge patients. The four-hour waiting time target, while overall seen as positive, was described as influencing decisions around patient admission, independent of clinical need. Factors external to the hospital such as a patient’s social support and community follow-up were universally considered powerful influences on admission. Lastly, the culture within the ED was described as having a strong influence (either negatively or positively) upon the decision to admit patients. Conclusion: Multiple factors were identified which go some way to explaining marked variation in admission rates observed between different Emergency Departments. Many of these factors require further inquiry through quantitative research in order to understand their influence further.

[1]  Sankalp Khanna,et al.  The National Emergency Access Target (NEAT) and the 4‐hour rule: time to review the target , 2016, The Medical journal of Australia.

[2]  Jon Nicholl,et al.  Variation in avoidable emergency admissions: multiple case studies of emergency and urgent care systems , 2016, Journal of health services research & policy.

[3]  S. Mason,et al.  What has the 4-hour access standard achieved? , 2014, British journal of hospital medicine.

[4]  Jon Nicholl,et al.  A system-wide approach to explaining variation in potentially avoidable emergency admissions: national ecological study , 2013, BMJ quality & safety.

[5]  E. Weber,et al.  Implications of England's four-hour target for quality of care and resource use in the emergency department. , 2012, Annals of emergency medicine.

[6]  A. Forster,et al.  Mapping out the emergency department disposition decision for high-acuity patients. , 2012, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  C. Palmer,et al.  Reductions in hospital admissions and mortality rates observed after integrating emergency care: a natural experiment , 2012, BMJ Open.

[8]  Papaarangi Reid,et al.  Implementing performance improvement in New Zealand emergency departments: the six hour time target policy national research project protocol , 2012, BMC Health Services Research.

[9]  Paul Atkinson,et al.  Emergency Department Crowding: Time for Interventions and Policy Evaluations , 2012, Emergency medicine international.

[10]  Simon Cooper,et al.  The “4-hour target”: emergency nurses’ views , 2007, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[11]  L. Sparks,et al.  An admission avoidance team: its role in the Accident & Emergency department. , 1999, Accident and emergency nursing.