Background: Nearly all Dutch citizens have a general practitioner (GP), acting as a gatekeeper to secondary care. Some patients bypass the GP and present to the emergency department (ED). To make best use of existing emergency care, Dutch health policy makers and insurance companies have proposed the integration of EDs and GP cooperatives (GPCs) into one facility. In this study, we examined ED use and assessed the characteristics of self-referrals and non-self-referrals, their need for hospital emergency care and self-referrals' motives for presenting at the ED. Methods: A descriptive cohort study was conducted in a Dutch level 1 trauma centre. Differences in patient characteristics, time of presentation and need for hospital emergency care were analysed using χ2 tests and t tests. A patient was considered to need hospital emergency care when he/she was admitted to the hospital, had an extremity fracture and/or when diagnostic tests were performed. Main determinants of self-referral were identified via logistic regression. Results: Of the 5,003 consecutive ED patients registering within the 5-week study period, 3,028 (60.5%) were self-referrals. Thirty-nine percent of the self-referrals had urgent acuity levels, as opposed to 65% of the non-self-referrals. Self-referrals more often suffered from injuries (49 vs. 20%). One third of the self-referrals presented during office hours. Of all self-referrals, 51% needed hospital emergency care. Younger age; non-urgent acuity level; chest pain, ear, nose or throat problems; and injuries were independent predictors for self-referral. Most cited motives for self-referring were ‘accessibility and convenience’ and perceived ‘medical necessity’. Conclusions: A substantial part of the self-referrals needed hospital emergency care. The 49% self-referrals who were eligible for GP care presented during out-of-hours as well as during office hours. This calls for an integrative approach to this health care problem.@en

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the walkout rate and to identify influencing patient and visit characteristics on walkout. Furthermore, we assessed the reasons for leaving and medical care needs after leaving. METHODS: In a 4-month population-based cohort study, the characteristics and influencing factors of walkout from two emergency departments in the Netherlands were studied. Afterwards, a follow-up telephone interview was conducted to assess the reasons for leaving and medical care needed. RESULTS: A total of 169 out of 23 780 (0.7%) registered patients left without treatment, of whom 62% left after triage. Of the triaged walkouts, 26% had urgent or highly urgent medical complaints and target times to treatment had elapsed for 54% of the triaged walkouts. Independent predictors of leaving without treatment included being self-referred, arriving during the evening or night or during crowded conditions, and relatively lower urgency triage allocation. Ninety (53%) walkouts were contacted afterwards by phone. Long waiting time (61%) was the most-cited prime reason for leaving. Medical problems had resolved spontaneously in 19 of the 90 (21%) walkouts, and 47 (52%) walkouts reported having sought medical care elsewhere. For 24 of the 90 (27%) walkouts with persisting complaints, medical care was advised during the follow-up telephone call. CONCLUSION: The average observed daily walkout rate was 1.4 patients over the 4-month period. In general, walkouts are self-referrals with lower urgent complaints, arriving during the evening or night shift or during crowded conditions. Most walkouts leave because of perceived long waiting times.@en

When acute stroke care is organised using a “drip-and-ship” model, patients receive immediate treatment at the nearest primary stroke centre followed by transfer to a comprehensive stroke centre (CSC). When stroke care is further centralised into the “direct-to-mothership” model, patients with stroke symptoms are immediately brought to a CSC to further reduce treatment times and enhance stroke outcomes. We investigated the effects of the ongoing centralization in a Dutch urban setting on treatment times of patients with confirmed ischemic stroke in a 4-year period. Next, in a non-randomized controlled trial, we assessed treatment times of patients with suspected ischemic stroke, and treatment times of patients with neurologic disorders other than suspected ischemic stroke, before and after the intervention in the CSC and the decentralized hospitals, the intervention being the change from “drip and ship” into “direct-to-mothership”. Our findings provide support for the ongoing centralization of acute stroke care in urban areas. Treatment times for patients with ischemic stroke decreased significantly, potentially improving functional outcomes. Improvements in treatment times for patients with suspected ischemic stroke were achieved without negative side effects for self-referrals with stroke symptoms and patients with other neurological disorders.@en