Objective: To investigate structural and psychological factors that lead non-urgent patients to choose the Accidents & Emergency Department (A&ED) rather than primary care services. Data sources: Data were collected through interviews by means of a structured questionnaire. Data regarding the A&ED sample were also drawn from the database of the department. Study design: Hypotheses were tested in a survey comparing A&ED non-urgent patients and patients using GP surgeries. Different perceptions of the characteristics of A&ED and primary care services were measured and a perceptual map was created using the linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Data collection: Emergency services users were interviewed in the A&ED of the General Hospital of the Province of Macerata (Italy). Primary care users were interviewed in four GP surgeries. 527 patients were interviewed between December 2006 and February 2007. Principal findings: A&ED and primary care patients look for different characteristics as diagnostic and therapeutic potentialities, empathy and competence, quick access or long-lasting relationship. Information asymmetry explains part of the behaviour. Conclusions: Use of A&ED services for non-urgent care can be reduced. The understanding of reasons underlying the choice and a change in access, timing and contents of care/services provided by general practitioners (GPs) might provide incentives for shifting from A&ED to GPs surgeries.

Why non-urgent patients choose emergency over primary care services? Empirical evidence and managerial implications / F. Lega, A. Mengoni. - In: HEALTH POLICY. - ISSN 0168-8510. - 88:2-3(2008), pp. 326-338. [10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.04.005]

Why non-urgent patients choose emergency over primary care services? Empirical evidence and managerial implications

F. Lega
;
2008

Abstract

Objective: To investigate structural and psychological factors that lead non-urgent patients to choose the Accidents & Emergency Department (A&ED) rather than primary care services. Data sources: Data were collected through interviews by means of a structured questionnaire. Data regarding the A&ED sample were also drawn from the database of the department. Study design: Hypotheses were tested in a survey comparing A&ED non-urgent patients and patients using GP surgeries. Different perceptions of the characteristics of A&ED and primary care services were measured and a perceptual map was created using the linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Data collection: Emergency services users were interviewed in the A&ED of the General Hospital of the Province of Macerata (Italy). Primary care users were interviewed in four GP surgeries. 527 patients were interviewed between December 2006 and February 2007. Principal findings: A&ED and primary care patients look for different characteristics as diagnostic and therapeutic potentialities, empathy and competence, quick access or long-lasting relationship. Information asymmetry explains part of the behaviour. Conclusions: Use of A&ED services for non-urgent care can be reduced. The understanding of reasons underlying the choice and a change in access, timing and contents of care/services provided by general practitioners (GPs) might provide incentives for shifting from A&ED to GPs surgeries.
Adult; Aged; Emergency Service, Hospital; Empirical Research; Female; Humans; Interviews as Topic; Italy; Male; Middle Aged; Patients; Primary Health Care; Young Adult; Choice Behavior
Settore SECS-P/07 - Economia Aziendale
2008
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0168851008000985-main.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 600.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
600.14 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/808314
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 25
  • Scopus 65
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 53
social impact