Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Target communities show poor awareness of NHS Direct
EDITOR Consequently we undertook a survey of 300 consecutive ambulatory
patients (or their parents) who referred themselves to the accident and
emergency department and had not contacted NHS Direct. We wanted to
find out whether they were aware of the service. Altogether 266 (89%)
questionnaires were completed, with 166 (62%) patients claiming to
have had no previous awareness of NHS Direct. Furthermore, of the 100 patients who were aware of the service, only 36 were aware of the
telephone charge while 51 thought that calls were taken by doctors.
Only eight "aware" patients, however, said that they would distrust
advice given by a nurse, a finding that supports a study by O'Cathain
et al.2
The survey also determined which sections of the community were unaware
of NHS Direct. Patients aged over 65 (all 9), patients from ethnic
minorities (41/59; 69%), patients from predominantly less affluent
postcodes (101/129; 78%), and young men (20/28; 71%) were
overrepresented. The survey also found that 240 (90%) patients claimed
to have access to a telephone and that 56 (21%) might have been
redirected away from our department by NHS Direct.
In the light of these findings we would say that NHS Direct has
failed to market its existence to those members of the community who
frequently access urgent health care. The results of NHS Direct impact
studies have consequently been confounded by this oversight. Whether a
proper national publicity campaign can improve the impact of this
beleaguered service remains to be seen.
Munro et al found that NHS Direct had no discernible
effect on the use of emergency ambulances or accident and emergency departments in the first year of operation, leading to a suggestion that this service may not prove cost effective.1 The study is limited by an assumption that the population studied had complete awareness of the service. Six months after the introduction of East
Midlands NHS Direct we had anecdotal evidence to suggest that many
patients attending our accident and emergency department were unaware
of the telephone advisory service.
emergmedlri{at}hotmail.com
Shekhar Chillala
Colin Read
Adrian Evans
Accident and Emergency Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary,
Leicester LE1 5WW
| 1. |
Munro J, Nicholl J, O'Cathain A, Knowles E.
Impact of NHS Direct on demand for immediate care: observational study.
BMJ
2000;
321:
150-153 |
| 2. |
O'Cathain A, Munro JF, Nicholl JP, Knowles E.
How helpful is NHS Direct? Postal survey of callers.
BMJ
2000;
320:
1035 |
Service has not decreased attendance at one paediatric A and E department
EDITOR The paper from Sheffield did not look at the impact on the number
of telephone calls to the accident and emergency department for medical
advice.1 This is a large and often forgotten workload. We
received 453 calls before NHS Direct began and 576 after, a 27%
increase. Fourteen calls to the department were redirected there from
NHS Direct.
We controlled for the time of year and the population. The annual
attendance at the accident and emergency department did not increase
over the two years of the audit. It would have been better if we could
have done a crossover trial in the same population with and without NHS
Direct. This criticism could also be made of the Sheffield work. Such a
trial, however, would mean the temporary withdrawal of a popular public
service.2
Our service does not provide documentation, computerised protocols, or
staff training for the telephone advice given. It had been planned that
all calls would be redirected to NHS Direct. This would have provided
equity and safety for patients and staff. It has not been possible,
however, to divert calls to NHS Direct because of the unexpectedly high
volume of calls that it has received.
NHS Direct has not decreased the attendance at our paediatric accident
and emergency department and has coincided with an increase in the
number of telephone calls to our informal service. This decreases the
time for patient contact. The situation needs further research and
consideration if NHS Direct is to be a success.
We thank the paediatric accident and emergency nursing
and medical staff and audit department for their help.
Our experience in a paediatric accident and emergency department
supports the data showing that NHS Direct has had little or no impact
on attendance rates in primary care.1 We audited the
attendance at Sunderland Royal Hospital's paediatric accident and
emergency department before and after NHS Direct started operating.
Admissions increased from 844 to 860.
J C Furness
J.C.Furness{at}ncl.ac.uk Department Paediatrics, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland
SR4 7TP
S Santosh
Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool L12 2AP
S Armstrong
Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP
1.
Munro J, Nicholl J, O'Cathain A, Knowles E.
Impact of NHS Direct on demand for immediate care: observational study.
BMJ
2000;
321:
150-153. (15 July.)
2.
O'Cathain A, Munro JF, Nicholl JP, Knowles E.
How helpful is NHS Direct? Postal survey of callers.
BMJ
2000;
320:
1035. (15 April.)
© BMJ 2000
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+