Patients ComplianceNCT02524080
Healthcare at Optimal Care Level for Patients Who Needs Primary Care
A study testing Triage to optimal healthcare level in people with Patients Compliance, run by University of Boras.
Trial summary
If patients get to optimal level of healthcare directly it will prevent suffering for both patients and their relatives and moreover save a lot of resources. In the project "Care at the right care level" (CRC) the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) will triage patients who are in need of primary health care to the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Patients Compliance
- What is being tested?
- Triage to optimal healthcare level
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2011to Jun 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Un-urgent patient in ambulance
- Age from 18 years
- No communication problems
- No dementia or disorientation
- Not in need of special examinations
Who cannot join
- No
About this study
Official title: Healthcare at Optimal Care Level for Patients Who Needs Primary Care - Collaboration Between Care Providers From The Emergency Medical Services' Perspective
If patients get to optimal level of healthcare directly it will prevent suffering for both patients and their relatives and moreover save a lot of resources. In the project "Care at the right care level" (CRC) the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) will triage patients who are in need of primary health care to the Primary Care (PC) instead of to the Emergency Department (ED). This intervention should be implemented with the same medical safety as with traditional care in the ED and the patient and their relatives should experience corresponding confidence to the healthcare provider. To prepare this intervention this patient group and their care needs have to be identified by a retrospective journal review and a guideline has to be developed. To evaluate the patients' and their relatives' experience of the intervention, finally interviews will be implemented. This project is expected to provide answers whether it is possible to triage non-urgent patients to another care level with the same medical safety and that the patients experience the same confidence in healthcare. And further it will answer the question, if the care providers around the patient manage to collaborate.
Read the detailed description
Background
The research has a caring science approach, which has the patient in focus, with the general aim to describe care that strengthens and supports health. Further, a health care science approach recognizes the patient's suffering as a motivation for care.
In this study a non-urgent patient is a patient with illness, injury or ill-health suitable for the health care received in PC. The PC is able to take care of problems that not urgent and unlikely to require admission. The problem should not need specialized service in an ED, such as facilities, urgent intervention, rapid and/or complex diagnostic and could equally be managed at the PC.
For increased survival, reduced risk of complications and ability to quickly return to a functional life, it is important that there is a coherent chain of care. The EMS with the Prehospital Emergency Nurses (PEN:s) is an important part of many treatment chains, fast tracks and pathways, for example for patients with stroke, heart attack, hip fracture and geriatric care.The care model the EMS currently follows, means that virtually all patients transported to ED regardless of medical need and seriousness, which is consistent with current medical guidelines. Studies shows that around 25 % of patients arriving to the ED should have been treated at another level of care for having the right care. There is also a connection between increased mortality and overloading in the ED.
The need for emergency care is large and tends to increase, particularly in the elderly population (≥ 65 years). For resources to be utilized effectively, the health care has to be given at the level of care that is most appropriate. This requires that different providers that all have a responsibility for the patients can think outside the box, based on the individual patient's need of care. In addition, assumes cooperation and coordination to enable organizational change, which can provide good care from the patient's perspective.
The numbers of care seekers tend to rise and health care resources must be used more efficiently to cope with the increasing patients. Today the healthcare providers, the Country Council, the PC and Community Care, don't collaborate with each other, although they all have a shared responsibility. According to health care prioritization decisions, witch control the need of care and time to care. For resources to be utilized efficiently, care is provided at the care level that is most appropriate. However this cannot be achieved today, because of the regional guidelines.
The problem exists nationally and studies show that it is also an internationally problem, and as the number of care seekers increases, the problem tends to grow. Studies explain that a lot of patients could go to the PC. And some means that one third of the patients should have their care at another level than ED.
A new model with extended prehospital emergency care, which not has been tried before, means that assessment of the patient's condition and the need for continuing care is made at collection point, if the patient's medical condition make this possible. The health care model called "Care at the right care level" (CRC), means that the assessment and treatment interventions are implemented, and decisions on further treatment is planned in consultation with the general physician (GP) in the patient's PC. Decisions on continuing care can, for example, implicate that the patient receives a visit time to the GP immediately or later, or run directly to the ED.
Aims The overall aim is to investigate if it is possible for the Prehospital Emergency Nurse (PEN) to triage non-urgent patients to optimal care level in the the Primary Care (PC).
Issues:
- How do patients experience trust to the healthcare?
- Is the new care model medical safe?
Study 1
Title: Swedish emergency medical services' identification of potential candidates for primary healthcare. Resubmitted June 2015, Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care.
The aim is to investigate if it is possible to isolate and identify the patient group and their care needs, which can be triaged at the primary care instead of to the ED.
Study 2
Title: Patients with suspected primary healthcare problems using the emergency medical services - Developing a questionnaire to measure patient trust in healthcare. In manuscript.
The aim is to developing an instrument for measuring patient's confidence to the health care.
Study 3
Title: Care at the right care level - an intervention study. Ongoing from April 2013.
The aim of the study is to investigate if it is possible to triage less sick or injured patients to another level of care with the same medical safety and that they still have the same confidence to the healthcare.
Study 4
Title: Prehospital emergency care for patients with primary care needs - Patients' experiences
The aim of the study is to describe the patient's lived experiences of being treated in the new caring model.
Ethical considerations
In the interventions study (study 3), there will be a risk that the patient need a secondary transport from the Healthcare Center to the ED. To reduce that risk the PEN always take a contact with the physician at the Primary care clinic, when the patient in the CRC-project is randomized to The Primary care. It is also always a risk that the patient feels depended and feels duty to participate in the study. So it is important that the PEN provides correct information about the free will. Except the above mentioned ethical considerations no other are aspected to arise. The benefit is considered high, while the risk is considered small.
Hypothesis
With the CRC-model the patients receive optimal health care and feel the same trust to the healthcare as the traditional healthcare.
Primary and secondary endpoints.
The primary endpoint is the proportion who received optimal care and experiencing the same trust in the care than to the traditional care.Secondary endpoints are correct preliminary assessment/final diagnosis without secondary transport.
The relation between the studies is logical. To do an intervention study, it is necessary to know witch patient´s is possible to include. And the PEN needs a decision support for their help to triage right patient to right level of care (study 1). For evaluating if patients still feel the same confidence to the healthcare, a measuring instrument is needed, and it also has to be validated (study 2). To know if it is possible to triage the non-urgent patient group to the Healthcare Center, the investigators have to try the intervention, and evaluate the project (study 3). To get a deeper understanding for the patients and his relatives experiences of obtaining the new healthcare model, interviews will be done (study 4).
- Conditions
- Patients Compliance
- Being tested
- Triage to optimal healthcare level
- Keywords
- Ambulance, Trust, Patients, Healthcare chain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Triage to optimal healthcare levelProcedure or surgery
Triage to optimal healthcare level
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Department | Other | Triage to optimal healthcare level Receives: Procedure: Triage to optimal healthcare level |
| Healthcare Center | Other | Triage to optimal healthcare level Receives: Procedure: Triage to optimal healthcare level |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
To measure patient trust in healthcare - Questionnaire
A lickert scale with possible responses as follows (scores in parentheses): strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither disagree nor agree (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5).
Measured: 2-3 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Aug 2015 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2011
- Primary completionJun 2015
- Study completionJun 2017 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Patients ComplianceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Boras
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Birgitta Wireklint Sundström, University of Boras
- Investigators
- Johan Herlitz, Professor, Study director, University of Boras, Sweden
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02524080
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UBoras
- Status last verified
- Aug 2015
- First submitted
- 11 Aug 2015
- Last updated
- 14 Aug 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Aug 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Healthcare at Optimal Care Level for Patients Who Needs Primary Care - Collaboration Between Care Providers From The Emergency Medical Services' Perspective
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02524080
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UBoras
- Conditions
- Patients Compliance
- Keywords
- Ambulance, Trust, Patients, Healthcare chain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of BorasUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2011
- Primary completion
- Jun 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2017 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Aug 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
If patients get to optimal level of healthcare directly it will prevent suffering for both patients and their relatives and moreover save a lot of resources. In the project "Care at the right care level" (CRC) the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) will triage patients who are in need of primary health care to the Primary Care (PC) instead of to the Emergency Department (ED). This intervention should be implemented with the same medical safety as with traditional care in the ED and the patient and their relatives should experience corresponding confidence to the healthcare provider. To prepare this intervention this patient group and their care needs have to be identified by a retrospective journal review and a guideline has to be developed. To evaluate the patients' and their relatives' experience of the intervention, finally interviews will be implemented. This project is expected to provide answers whether it is possible to triage non-urgent patients to another care level with the same medical safety and that the patients experience the same confidence in healthcare. And further it will answer the question, if the care providers around the patient manage to collaborate.
Detailed description
Background
The research has a caring science approach, which has the patient in focus, with the general aim to describe care that strengthens and supports health. Further, a health care science approach recognizes the patient's suffering as a motivation for care.
In this study a non-urgent patient is a patient with illness, injury or ill-health suitable for the health care received in PC. The PC is able to take care of problems that not urgent and unlikely to require admission. The problem should not need specialized service in an ED, such as facilities, urgent intervention, rapid and/or complex diagnostic and could equally be managed at the PC.
For increased survival, reduced risk of complications and ability to quickly return to a functional life, it is important that there is a coherent chain of care. The EMS with the Prehospital Emergency Nurses (PEN:s) is an important part of many treatment chains, fast tracks and pathways, for example for patients with stroke, heart attack, hip fracture and geriatric care.The care model the EMS currently follows, means that virtually all patients transported to ED regardless of medical need and seriousness, which is consistent with current medical guidelines. Studies shows that around 25 % of patients arriving to the ED should have been treated at another level of care for having the right care. There is also a connection between increased mortality and overloading in the ED.
The need for emergency care is large and tends to increase, particularly in the elderly population (≥ 65 years). For resources to be utilized effectively, the health care has to be given at the level of care that is most appropriate. This requires that different providers that all have a responsibility for the patients can think outside the box, based on the individual patient's need of care. In addition, assumes cooperation and coordination to enable organizational change, which can provide good care from the patient's perspective.
The numbers of care seekers tend to rise and health care resources must be used more efficiently to cope with the increasing patients. Today the healthcare providers, the Country Council, the PC and Community Care, don't collaborate with each other, although they all have a shared responsibility. According to health care prioritization decisions, witch control the need of care and time to care. For resources to be utilized efficiently, care is provided at the care level that is most appropriate. However this cannot be achieved today, because of the regional guidelines.
The problem exists nationally and studies show that it is also an internationally problem, and as the number of care seekers increases, the problem tends to grow. Studies explain that a lot of patients could go to the PC. And some means that one third of the patients should have their care at another level than ED.
A new model with extended prehospital emergency care, which not has been tried before, means that assessment of the patient's condition and the need for continuing care is made at collection point, if the patient's medical condition make this possible. The health care model called "Care at the right care level" (CRC), means that the assessment and treatment interventions are implemented, and decisions on further treatment is planned in consultation with the general physician (GP) in the patient's PC. Decisions on continuing care can, for example, implicate that the patient receives a visit time to the GP immediately or later, or run directly to the ED.
Aims The overall aim is to investigate if it is possible for the Prehospital Emergency Nurse (PEN) to triage non-urgent patients to optimal care level in the the Primary Care (PC).
Issues:
- How do patients experience trust to the healthcare?
- Is the new care model medical safe?
Study 1
Title: Swedish emergency medical services' identification of potential candidates for primary healthcare. Resubmitted June 2015, Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care.
The aim is to investigate if it is possible to isolate and identify the patient group and their care needs, which can be triaged at the primary care instead of to the ED.
Study 2
Title: Patients with suspected primary healthcare problems using the emergency medical services - Developing a questionnaire to measure patient trust in healthcare. In manuscript.
The aim is to developing an instrument for measuring patient's confidence to the health care.
Study 3
Title: Care at the right care level - an intervention study. Ongoing from April 2013.
The aim of the study is to investigate if it is possible to triage less sick or injured patients to another level of care with the same medical safety and that they still have the same confidence to the healthcare.
Study 4
Title: Prehospital emergency care for patients with primary care needs - Patients' experiences
The aim of the study is to describe the patient's lived experiences of being treated in the new caring model.
Ethical considerations
In the interventions study (study 3), there will be a risk that the patient need a secondary transport from the Healthcare Center to the ED. To reduce that risk the PEN always take a contact with the physician at the Primary care clinic, when the patient in the CRC-project is randomized to The Primary care. It is also always a risk that the patient feels depended and feels duty to participate in the study. So it is important that the PEN provides correct information about the free will. Except the above mentioned ethical considerations no other are aspected to arise. The benefit is considered high, while the risk is considered small.
Hypothesis
With the CRC-model the patients receive optimal health care and feel the same trust to the healthcare as the traditional healthcare.
Primary and secondary endpoints.
The primary endpoint is the proportion who received optimal care and experiencing the same trust in the care than to the traditional care.Secondary endpoints are correct preliminary assessment/final diagnosis without secondary transport.
The relation between the studies is logical. To do an intervention study, it is necessary to know witch patient´s is possible to include. And the PEN needs a decision support for their help to triage right patient to right level of care (study 1). For evaluating if patients still feel the same confidence to the healthcare, a measuring instrument is needed, and it also has to be validated (study 2). To know if it is possible to triage the non-urgent patient group to the Healthcare Center, the investigators have to try the intervention, and evaluate the project (study 3). To get a deeper understanding for the patients and his relatives experiences of obtaining the new healthcare model, interviews will be done (study 4).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Department | Other | Procedure: Triage to optimal healthcare levelTriage to optimal healthcare level |
| Healthcare Center | Other | Procedure: Triage to optimal healthcare levelTriage to optimal healthcare level |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Un-urgent patient in ambulance
- Age from 18 years
- No communication problems
- No dementia or disorientation
- Not in need of special examinations
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- No
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Triage to optimal healthcare levelTriage to optimal healthcare level | Procedure or surgery | Emergency Department, Healthcare Center |
Primary outcome
To measure patient trust in healthcare - Questionnaire
Time frame: 2-3 days
A lickert scale with possible responses as follows (scores in parentheses): strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither disagree nor agree (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5).
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Aug 2015.
Related trials for Patients Compliance
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Recruiting
Hybrid mHealth and Telerehabilitation vs Conventional Physiotherapy for Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Not yet recruiting
Use and Acceptability of an AI-Assisted Health Application for Individuals Living With a Chronic Condition
Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
Recruiting
Effect of Mandala Coloring on Anxiety, Pain, Vital Signs, and Patient Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Transurethral Resection of the Prostate
Mandala Coloring
Enrolling by invitationPhase 2
Deployment and Evaluation of Humanoid Robotics in Coalition-Aligned Clinical Care Settings
Mobility Impairment, Clinical Workflow Optimization
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Johan Herlitz, Professor study director
University of Boras, Sweden
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Triage to optimal healthcare level in people with Patients Compliance, run by University of Boras.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Aug 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
To measure patient trust in healthcare - Questionnaire (time frame: 2-3 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Aug 2015.