Advertisement

BMC Health Services Research

, 19:568 | Cite as

General practitioners’ and out-of-hours doctors’ role as gatekeeper in emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway: registry-based observational study

  • Jesper BlinkenbergEmail author
  • Sahar Pahlavanyali
  • Øystein Hetlevik
  • Hogne Sandvik
  • Steinar Hunskaar
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Utilization, expenditure, economics and financing systems

Abstract

Background

Primary care doctors have a gatekeeper function in many healthcare systems, and strategies to reduce emergency hospital admissions often focus on general practitioners’ (GPs’) and out-of-hours (OOH) doctors’ role. The aim of the present study was to investigate these doctors’ role in emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in the Norwegian public healthcare system, where GPs and OOH doctors have a distinct gatekeeper function.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis was performed by linking data from the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) and the physicians’ claims database. The referring doctor was defined as the physician who had sent a claim for a consultation with the patient within 24 h prior to an emergency admission. If there was no claim registered prior to hospital arrival, the admission was defined as direct, representing admissions from ambulance services, referrals from nursing home doctors, and admissions initiated by in-hospital doctors.

Results

In 2014 there were 497,587 emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway after excluding birth related conditions. Direct admissions were most frequent (43%), 31% were referred by OOH doctors, 25% were referred by GPs, whereas only 2% were referred from outpatient clinics or private specialists with public contract. Direct admissions were more common in central areas (52%), here GPs’ referrals constituted only 16%. The prehospital paths varied with the hospital discharge diagnosis. For anaemias, 46–49% were referred by GPs, for acute appendicitis and mental/alcohol related disorders 52 and 49% were referred by OOH doctors, respectively. For both malignant neoplasms and cardiac arrest 63% were direct admissions.

Conclusions

GPs or OOH doctors referred many emergencies to somatic hospitals, and for some clinical conditions GPs’ and OOH doctors’ gatekeeping role was substantial. However, a significant proportion of the emergency admissions was direct, and this reduces the impact of the GPs’ and OOH doctors’ gatekeeper roles, even in a strict gatekeeping system.

Keywords

Norway General practitioners After-hours care Out-of-hours medical care Gatekeeping Referral and consultation Emergencies Patient admission 

Abbreviations

EMCC

Emergency medical communication centre

GP

General practitioner

HELFO

Norwegian Health Economics Administration

ICD-10

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems version 10

KUHR

Control and Payment of Reimbursement to Health Service Providers database

NPR

Norwegian Patient Registry

OOH

Out-of-hours

PSPC

Private specialist with public contract

RGP

Regular general practitioner

SSB

Statistics Norway

Background

An aging population and new diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities, combined with growing expectations, put extra demands on the healthcare system. Emergency hospital admissions represent a considerable workload and expense for the healthcare systems worldwide. Reducing these admissions has been a priority for many years [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Several studies have described various factors influencing the rate of emergency admissions, and a variety of factors has been found to be associated with excess of admissions or avoidable admissions [7, 8, 9]. Age older than 65 years is associated with higher emergency hospital admission rates in the UK and US [7, 10, 11]. On the other hand, continuity of care in general practice and access to a preferred general practitioner (GP) have been shown to reduce the emergency admission rates in general [4, 7, 9], and also for ambulatory care sensitive conditions [12]. There is variation in admission rates by clinical condition in the US [13]. However, analyses of the overall picture of prehospital paths and effects of gatekeeping have received less attention.

GPs are gatekeepers in many healthcare systems. Gatekeeping means that patients have to see a primary care provider who decides whether specialist care is necessary. Such referral regulates the access to specialty care, hospital care, or diagnostic tests. It is supposed to give better control over the healthcare costs and more targeted and efficient hospital healthcare [14]. It has been found to lower utilization of healthcare services and expenditures [15].

Access to specialist healthcare in Norway is generally referral based, and patients cannot meet at hospital emergency rooms in Norway without a prior contact with prehospital healthcare [16]. This makes the Norwegian healthcare system well suited to study the impact of strict gatekeeping on emergency admissions. A Norwegian study from a single hospital indicated that patients admitted for emergencies to a medical department often did not have any contact with GPs or out-of-hours (OOH) doctors prior to the admission [17]. However, a nationwide analysis of the prehospital paths for emergency hospital admissions in a public healthcare system where GPs and OOH doctors have a distinct gatekeeper function, like Norway, has not been conducted.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the prehospital paths for emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway and describe variations in the gatekeeping role of the GPs and OOH doctors with respect to geographical centrality and time of day. In addition, we wanted to explore GPs’ and OOH doctors’ role in emergency admissions to hospital in relation to the clinical conditions involved.

Methods

The study was designed as a registry based cross-sectional analysis using data from the total population in Norway.

Norwegian healthcare system

All Norwegian residents have access to a public healthcare system, covered by the National Insurance Scheme. Patients older than 15 years have to pay an out of pocket fee for consultations with GPs, OOH doctors, ambulatory care specialists, and outpatient clinics in hospitals (15–33€ in 2014). There is a maximum sum (219 € in 2014) on how much a patient may have to pay during one calendar year [16]. Hospital stays and ambulance services are free of charge.

The municipalities organize the primary healthcare, including GPs and OOH services, while the state is in charge of hospitals and the ambulance services [16, 18]. In 2001, the Norwegian government established a patient list scheme with Regular General Practitioners (RGP scheme). The Norwegian Health Economics Administration (HELFO) is administrator for the scheme, which provides a personal RGP for every resident [19].

RGPs provide medical care for their patients during office hours, both in acute and non-acute cases [19, 20]. OOH services provide healthcare in case of emergencies 24 h a day by consultations, home visits and callouts, also when the RGPs’ practices are closed [21]. In 2014, there were 191 OOH services in Norway, 80 were organized as municipal operations and 111 as inter-municipal cooperation [22]. The RGPs are obliged to participate in the OOH services [20]. In addition, some interns and doctors with other specialties also work at OOH services.

If a life-threatening condition is suspected, the public can call 113 – the emergency medical communication centre (EMCC). In case of less serious conditions, GPs can be contacted during office hours, and OOH services are accessible at all times at the national number 116117. The EMCC and OOH services work closely connected through a national emergency radio network. Depending on the symptoms’ presentation, the EMCC decides whether the patient needs ambulance transport directly to hospital, or should be seen by another healthcare provider, like a GP or OOH doctor. The OOH service usually has a call-first routine, but at some places, patients may show up directly.

Study setting

Based on data from all registered inhabitants during 2014 in Norway (N = 5,109,056) we identified all emergency admissions to Norwegian hospitals in the period from 1 January until 31 December 2014. As psychiatric hospitals were not included in the study, we use the term somatic hospital admissions. Three national registries were used as data sources; Statistics Norway (SSB), Control and Payment of Reimbursement to Health Service Providers database (KUHR), and The Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR).

SSB contains official demographic data about the Norwegian population. SSB has classified all municipalities based on centrality, which is a description of a municipality’s geographical position in relation to workplaces and public services. The classification gives every municipality a value from 0 to 1000. Based on this value the municipalities are then categorized into 6 groups, with group 1 representing the most urban municipalities in the capital region, and group 6 referring to the most rural municipalities [23].

The KUHR database is administrated by HELFO, which receives compensation claims from all GPs, OOH doctors, and private specialists with public contract (PSPC). These claims are registered together with additional information about care provider’s ID-number, patient’s ID-number, diagnosis, gender, age, address, date and time and type of service provided (consultation, home visit or telephone consultation). GP contacts and OOH contacts are coded separately.

NPR records information about all the patients’ contacts with specialist healthcare, including information about the patient’s ID number, gender, age, date and time and type of service performed, including institution, degree of urgency, and discharge diagnosis. For some administrative reasons, NPR also included information from the OOH services in the second largest city (Bergen), and these contacts were in this study included as OOH service contacts.

Contacts with other medical services, such as nursing home doctors, private medical providers, or the ambulance services, are not included in these registries.

SSB pseudo anonymized the 2014 population data by replacing the patient’s ID-number with a serial number. This number was then sent to NPR and HELFO, and these registries also replaced the ID-number with the same serial number. Thus, data from all three sources could be combined.

Variables and definitions

NPR categorizes every admission according to degree of urgency. We defined an emergency admission as a patient requiring hospital admission immediately or within 24 h after the contact determining admission is necessary.

NPR contains no variable for referring agent. Therefore, we made a proxy for this by linking each admission to a prehospital contact if the contact was within 24 h prior to the time of admission. In case of admission on a Monday, a contact during the preceding weekend was accepted as the referral contact. Since GPs and OOH doctors are not always able to fill out the claims when seeing the patient in emergency consultations, delayed compensation claims produced within 12 h after the admission time was also defined as a referral contact.

For some admissions, there were more than one contact prior to the admission. These contacts were prioritized and included in the following order: OOH contact, GP contact, outpatient contact, and PSPC contact, reflecting that an OOH contact may be assumed to be the most urgent contact.

The emergency admissions were then categorized into four prehospital paths, according to the healthcare services that had provided the gatekeeping or the referral service. The admission was recognized as (1) a GP admission, (2) an OOH doctor admission, or (3) a PSPC admission, if the patient had seen one of these services a short time before admission, respectively. If there was no such contact found prior to the admission, it was categorized as (4) a direct admission.

Weekday was defined as Monday to Friday, and weekend as Saturday and Sunday, corresponding to GPs opening hours. Public holidays were also defined as weekend.

The prehospital paths were analysed based on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems version 10 (ICD-10) [24]. The admissions were presented by diagnosis chapters using the first letter in the ICD-10 codes. When analysing more specific diagnoses we used the first three characters of the diagnosis code, thus reducing the number of diagnoses.

When analysing discharge diagnoses typical for GP contacts or OOH contacts prior to admission or diagnoses for direct admissions, we excluded diagnoses with less than 500 cases. Some diagnoses (ICD-chapters) were expected to be the result of direct hospital follow-ups, and were excluded: O (pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium) and Z (persons encountering health services for examination and investigation). Chapter C (malignant neoplasms) showed a specific pattern and was therefore analyzed as one unit.

According to national routines on maternity care, women in labour can contact hospital directly for admission to a maternity ward. A birth-related admission was defined as either an admission with the primary discharge ICD-10 diagnosis “Outcome of delivery” (Z37) or “Liveborn infant according to place of birth and type of delivery” (Z38). All admissions in the diagnosis chapter containing conditions originating in the perinatal period (P) were also defined as a birth-related admission. The large majority of birth admissions were identified as direct admissions and were excluded from further analyses (Fig. 1). However, birth related admissions with a GP or OOH contact prior to admission, were kept as a GP or OOH contact.
Fig. 1

Prehospital pathways for emergency admissions. Legend: Prehospital pathways for all the emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway in 2014 *Private specialist with public contract

Analyses

The analyses were carried out by using Stata® 15.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). A flow chart was constructed for the predefined prehospital paths. Prehospital paths, discharge diagnoses, and centrality were analysed by frequency two-way tables. As the material is a complete national data set, all differences are real and without statistical uncertainty. The results are therefore presented without any statistical tests.

Results

There were 551,753 emergency hospital admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway in 2014, according to our case definition. One in ten admissions were birth related, hence not supposed to have visited a primary healthcare doctor before admission (Fig. 1). After excluding the birth-related admissions from the material, the distribution of the remaining 497,587 somatic emergency hospital admissions by referring agents is shown in Fig. 1. Direct admissions were most frequent (43%), 31% were referred by OOH doctors, 25% were referred by GPs, whereas only 2% were referred from outpatient’s clinics or PSPCs.

Day and time of admission

Large differences in prehospital paths were found for weekdays vs. weekends, and by day and night hours (Fig. 2). On weekdays, most patients were admitted during the daytime, 59% from 8 am to 4 pm. GP contacts were the main prehospital path in this period, with a little dip representing lunch hour. No patients were admitted from GPs during weekends. Patients referred from the OOH services were the largest group during evenings and nights on weekdays, and from midday until 2 am during afternoons and nights on weekends. Direct admissions were dominating during morning hours, both weekdays and weekends.
Fig. 2

Emergency admissions by prehospital pathway and time of the day. Legend: All emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in 2014 in Norway, sorted by prehospital pathways and time of the day during weekdays and weekends

Centrality patterns

Tables 1 and 2 show emergency admissions by centrality group, referring agent, and per 1000 inhabitants. The mean number of emergency admissions per 1000 inhabitants per year was 97, highest in the least central group (115), and lowest in the most central group (87). For direct admissions, we found an increasing proportion by increasing centrality, so in the most central (urban) areas more than half of the admissions to somatic hospitals in 2014 were direct admissions. For the two least central areas, with 12% of the population and 14% of the admissions, only 37% of the admissions were direct.
Table 1

Frequency of all emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway 2014 by patient residence centrality

 

All admissions

Population

Centrality

N

%

N

Admissions per 1000

1 (most central)

88,050

18

1,011,602

87

2

121,976

25

1,199,290

102

3

123,990

25

1,357,164

91

4

94,407

19

906,580

104

5

48,956

10

459,368

107

6 (least central)

20,092

4

175,052

115

Sum

497,471a

100

5,109,056

97

a 116 cases missing the centrality variable

Table 2

Variation in prehospital paths by patient residence centrality for all emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in Norway 2014 (N = 497,587a)

 

General practitioner

Out-of-hours doctor

Outpatient clinic or PSPCb

Direct admission

Centrality

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1 (most central)

13,838

16

24,804

28

4038

5

45,370

52

2

28,695

24

39,335

32

2271

2

51,675

42

3

32,060

26

37,024

30

2241

2

52,665

42

4

26,397

28

29,909

32

1675

2

36,426

39

5

14,972

31

15,458

32

667

1

17,859

36

6 (least central)

6156

31

6226

31

217

1

7493

37

a 116 cases missing the centrality variable

b Private specialist with public contract

There was an increasing proportion of referrals from GPs by decreasing centrality, as referrals from GPs constituted only 16% in the most central group and 31% of the admissions in the two least central groups of municipalities. The proportion of patients referred from OOH doctors was relatively stable by centrality group, varying from 28 to 32% in the various centrality groups. Outpatient clinics and PSPCs referred few patients, and had low shares in all centrality groups, but reached 5% in the most central group. Hospitals in the most central regions had up to 61% direct admissions, whereas the most rural had only 29% (data not shown).

Diagnoses

Among all the emergency admissions, injuries were the most frequent discharge diagnosis group, followed by diseases in the circulatory system, symptoms and findings not elsewhere classified, and diseases in the respiratory system (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Emergency admissions by diagnosis groups. Legend: Distribution of admissions by diagnosis groups for the discharge diagnosis (ICD-10) after emergency admissions to somatic hospitals (except normal birth and related conditions) in Norway 2014 (N = 497,587)

Table 3 shows the 20 most common diagnoses by the four prehospital paths, these diagnoses constituted 35% of all admissions. Pneumonia (J15, J18) was the most common diagnosis, followed by pain in throat and chest (R07), abdominal and pelvic pain (R10), atrial arrhythmias (I48), and acute myocardial infarction (I21). Several kinds of injuries were also in the top 20, together with major chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure.
Table 3

Distribution of prehospital pathways for all admissions (except birth related conditions), and by discharge diagnosis (ICD-10 codes) for the 20 most common diagnosis after somatic hospital stays in Norway 2014

 

General practitioner

Out-of-hours doctor

Outpatient clinic or PSPCa

Direct admission

Sum

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

All admissions

122,126

25

152,800

31

11,110

2

211,551

43

497,587

100

Diagnosis (ICD-10)

 Pneumonia (J15 + J18)

5595

27

6557

32

3161

1

8198

40

20,488

100

 Pain in throat and chest (R07)

4332

27

6613

41

138

1

5287

32

16,320

100

 Abdominal and pelvic pain (R10)

4538

29

7163

46

88

1

3723

24

15,518

100

 Atrial fibrillation and flutter (I48)

3990

34

3314

28

94

1

4391

37

11,873

100

 Acute myocardial infarction (I21)

2386

21

3115

28

178

1

5694

50

11,310

100

 Fracture of femur (S72)

1240

12

2684

27

115

2

5821

58

9958

100

 Chronic obstructive pumonary disease (J44)

2350

26

2897

32

213

1

3705

41

9003

100

 Intracranial injury (S06)

1045

13

3276

40

51

4

3595

44

8249

100

 Other dissorders of urinary system (N39)

1899

25

2697

36

333

1

2842

38

7498

100

 Cerebral infarction (I63)

1687

23

1835

25

60

1

3831

52

7409

100

 Heart failure (I50)

2579

35

1874

25

56

1

2859

39

7392

100

 Angina pectoris (I20)

1915

28

1922

28

80

2

2794

41

6750

100

 Complications of procedures (T81)

1139

20

1338

23

119

3

3151

54

5820

100

 Alcohol related disorders (F10)

546

9

2838

49

192

0

2368

41

5779

100

 Acute appendicitis (K35)

1686

30

2958

52

27

0

987

17

5642

100

 Syncope and collapse (R55)

1177

22

1954

37

11

1

2108

40

5294

100

 Choleolithiasis (K80)

1424

28

2193

44

55

1

1355

27

5002

100

 Medical observation (Z03)

1383

28

1527

31

30

1

1945

40

4914

100

 Fracture of forearm (S52)

629

13

1799

38

59

7

2013

42

4777

100

 Fracture of lower leg, including ancle (S82)

562

12

1645

35

228

5

2247

48

4682

100

 Sum

42,102

 

60,199

 

2463

 

68,914

 

173,678

35 (of all)

a Private specialist with public contract

Prehospital paths differed considerably between different discharge diagnoses (Table 4). The GPs (25% of all emergency admissions) had a much higher share of, e.g. anaemias and other conditions of the blood, sciatica, heart failure, and various local subacute diseases like haemorrhoids, diverticulitis, and deep venous thrombosis. OOH doctors (31% of all admissions) had a high share of referrals for various acute conditions, like appendicitis, foreign body in alimentary tract, mental and alcohol related disorders, abdominal pain and other acute gastro-intestinal conditions, asthma, and nephrolithiasis. The direct prehospital path (43% of all admissions) was most common for the diagnosis of agranulocytosis, hydrocephalus and cardiac arrest, but all with relatively small absolute numbers. All diagnoses on the top 20 list for direct admissions had a percentage above 50, revealing a list of conditions being extensively removed from undergoing a gatekeeper process. Admissions for malignant neoplasms was by far the largest group(C) (63%, N = 24,190), followed by fractures and other orthopedic conditions, epilepsy, and chronic diseases of the lungs, kidneys and heart. Major and common emergencies, such as stroke (52%), acute myocardial infarction (50%) and pneumonia (40%) did not reach the top 20 list of direct admissions but had high absolute numbers.
Table 4

Emergency admissions by discharge ICD-10 diagnosis where contact with a) GP or b) out-of-hour (OOH) doctor, or c) direct admission is the dominating prehospital pathway

a) GP contact before admission (N = 122,126)

 

Admissions with the discharge diagnose

GP contact before admission

Diagnosis

N

%

Iron deficiency anaemia (D50)

1980

49

Haemorrhoids (K64)

655

46

Other anaemias (D64)

1274

45

Anal and rectal abscess (K61)

1214

44

Diverticular disease (K57)

3234

44

Intervertebral disc disorders (M51)

2156

44

Mononucleosis (B27)

517

42

Phlebitis and thrombophlebitis (I80)

1428

42

Localized swelling, head (R22)

523

41

Venous embolism and thrombosis (I82)

548

39

Excessive vomiting in pregnancy (O21)

1205

39

Gout (M10)

659

38

Malaise and fatigue (R53)

516

38

Other spondylopathies (M48)

735

37

Ulcerative colitis (K51)

969

37

Disturbances of skin sensation (R20)

745

36

Facial nerve disorders (G51)

516

36

Cutaneous abscess (L02)

1509

35

Heart failure (I50)

7392

35

Osteomyelitis (M86)

526

34

b) OOH doctor contact before admission (N = 152,800)

 

Admissions with the discharge diagnose

OOH contact before admission

Diagnosis

N

%

Acute appendicitis (K35)

5642

52

Foreign body in alimentary tract (T18)

690

52

Effects of other external causes (T75)

732

51

Mental/alcohol disorders (F10)

5779

49

Mental/psychoactive subst. Disorders (F19)

1717

49

Acute tonsillitis (J03)

1130

48

Acute pancreatitis (K85)

1995

46

Abdominal and pelvic pain (R10)

15,518

46

Haemorrhage, airways (R04)

1129

46

Mental/opioids disorders (F11)

757

46

Viral intestinal infections (A08)

1433

46

Adverse effects (T78)

1419

45

Viral infection of unspecified site (B34)

1065

44

Cholelithiasis (K80)

5002

44

Gatroenteritis and colitis (A09)

3225

44

Asthma (J45)

2100

43

Calculus of kidney (N20)

3324

43

Disorders of vestibular function (H81)

2017

43

Paralytic ileus/ intestinal obstruction (K56)

3356

42

Dorsalgia (M54)

3648

42

c) Direct admissions except the ICD-10 diagnosis groups pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium (0XX), and factors influencing health status and contact with health services (ZXX) (N = 211,551)

 

Admissions with the discharge diagnose

Direct admission

Diagnosis

N

%

Agranulocytosis (D70)

749

72

Hydrocephalus (G91)

587

68

Malignant neoplasms (C)

24,190

63

Cardiac arrest (I46)

539

63

Orthopaedic complications (T84)

2001

62

Pneumonitis due to food and vomit (J69)

836

59

Intracerebral haemorrhage (I61)

1421

58

Fracture of femur (S72)

9958

58

Superficial injury of thorax (S20)

522

58

Mental/sedatives dissorders (F13)

658

58

Epilepsy (G40)

3874

57

Multiple sclerosis (G35)

969

55

Open wound of head (S01)

849

55

Respiratory failure, unspecified (J96)

2388

55

Complications of procedures ICA (T81)

5820

54

Chronic ischaemic heart disease (I25)

2954

54

Chronic kidney disease (N18)

2080

53

Sequelae of cerebrovascular disease (I69)

828

53

Parkinson’s disease (G20)

661

53

Aortic aneurysm and dissection (I71)

982

53

Discussion

Main results

We found that 25% of emergency-admitted patients to somatic hospitals in Norway in 2014 were referred by a GP and 31% by an OOH doctor. The largest group of patients were admitted without a registered contact prior to admission (direct admission, 43%). While referrals from GPs were most frequent during office hours, OOH doctors referred patients mainly during evenings, nights and weekends. Direct admissions had the same diurnal pattern as the total emergency admissions, more admissions in daytime and less during the night. Fewer patients living in the most central region were referred by GPs than in less central regions (16% versus 24–31%). More patients were directly admitted (52%) in the most central areas.

When analysing the prehospital paths for different discharge diagnoses, we found considerable variation. It is likely that the explanation for this lies in the nature of the clinical presentation and urgency of the medical conditions, in addition to health service factors. Similar to the findings of Vest-Hansen et al. in Denmark, this study showed that pneumonia was the most common admitted emergency medical condition [25].

Strengths and limitations

Our study includes all residents of Norway, and all their GP- and OOH contacts, and all emergency admissions to somatic hospitals in 2014. Hence, there is no selection bias. The registries used are based on data delivered with the purpose of managing funding of primary- and specialist healthcare and are therefore probably complete. This means that the material is fully representative for Norway.

There is no information of referring services in the NPR, and we therefore had to make an algorithm for this purpose. The algorithm linked 57% of all emergency admissions to a referring service. Some of the prehospital contacts categorized as referring contacts might be random contacts with no connection to the admission. Nevertheless, we found a clear accumulation of contacts within the 24 h before admission, reducing the likeliness for high incidence of random linkage. Some prehospital contacts with GP or OOH services may not provide sufficient help, leading patients to contact EMCC, which might result in a direct admission by ambulance services. However, only for the most urgent cases would this comply with the national admission routines.

We used the discharge diagnosis to describe the medical condition for each admission. This does not give accurate information about the clinical presentation at the time of admission, which is the basis for deciding the prehospital path. Using the referral diagnosis from the gatekeeping GP and OOH doctor could put extra information on this, but the 43% direct admission would not have such a referral diagnosis. Reasons for encountering GPs or OOH services are not generally available in Norway, and it is thus not possible to link e.g. abdominal pain, fever, etc. to the referral situation.

Gatekeeping

Generally, a gatekeeping system gives power to primary care doctors (GPs and OOH doctors) to decide whether a patient needs specialty care, hospital care, or a diagnostic test, and patients not have access to specialist or hospital care without a prior examination and a referral [26]. Gatekeeping is associated with lower utilization of health services and has been suggested to reduce hospitalizations [15]. In a healthcare system facing capacity problems, this is a preferred development. Recently there has been debate on the value of gatekeeping related to GPs’ workload and patient choice [14]. Although Norway has a gatekeeper-based healthcare system, we found that only 56% of the emergency-admitted patients came through the primary healthcare gatekeeping system. This is in line with the findings of Grondal et al. from a smaller study at a medical department in Norway, where GPs and OOH doctors referred 26 and 31%, respectively [17]. A reasonable level of gatekeeping for emergency admissions is not possible to determine. However, the variation by centrality could indicate that primary care doctor gatekeeping can be obtained for two thirds of emergency admissions. This could reduce the workload and expenses in hospital care [14].

The diagnoses where the GP played a major role as gatekeeper in our material were anaemias, of which 45–49% of the patients were referred by GP, infections (34–44%) and worsening of chronic disease (34–38%). These diagnoses seem to be less urgent, and might be identified at a regular control consultation, or an extra emergency contact at the GP office. This resembles the picture from Denmark where anaemia, diabetes, atrial fibrillation and heart failure show a reduction in admission rate from office-hours when GPs work, to evening, night and weekend [25]. Skarshaug et al. found a similar pattern in another Norwegian study, showing that 74% of the patients admitted with heart failure had a GP contact within the previous month [27].

The OOH doctor more often was referring patients with conditions where medical investigation and treatment is more urgent, like abdominal pain (42–52%) and mental illness/substance abuse and intoxication (46–49%).

Direct admissions

The direct admissions are the most frequent prehospital path in our material, and may represent admissions from nursing homes, admissions initiated by hospital doctors following up the patients in specialist healthcare, or directly admitted by ambulance services. As expected, direct admissions are more frequent for highly urgent conditions such as cardiac arrest (63%) and intracerebral haemorrhage (58%) suggesting direct admissions by ambulance service. Our study also shows that 37 and 42% of these cases, respectively, do have a GP or OOH contact before admission. According to national guidelines, cerebral infarction should be managed by direct prehospital path [28]. However, 23% were referred by GPs and 25% by OOH doctors. A study from The Netherlands found that as many as 49% of patients with acute stroke had a GP contact before admission [29]. Probably, some of these patients contact their GP or other primary care providers instead of EMCC in emergencies. The clinical presentation of such urgent conditions is not always the classic acute pattern, similar to stroke and acute coronary syndrome [29, 30].

On the other hand, we know that the OOH doctors and GPs are highly involved in acute cases. In 2014, 65% of the Norwegian OOH services reported that the doctors participate in emergency callouts always or often, when alarmed [22]. One earlier study showed that GPs or OOH doctors participated in 42% of alerted emergency cases [31, 32]. In 2015, the new emergency medicine regulation in Norway stated that the OOH doctors are obliged to be contacted in the emergency communication system and to participate in emergency callouts, when needed [21].

Some medical conditions are followed up in specialist care at hospitals. It is likely that worsening or complications may be discovered at specialist care consultations, or by the patient’s direct contact to the hospital. This might contribute to the high proportion of direct admissions for malignant neoplasms (63%) and orthopaedic complications (62%). Grondal et al. found that 18% of all admissions to a medical department were from outpatient clinics and open return agreements [17]. It is likely that admissions from outpatient clinics at the hospital are often converted for administrative reasons directly from an outpatient contact to an emergency admission without registering the outpatient clinic contact. Also, some of the patients with a discharge diagnosis of malignant disease might have been admitted because of acute symptoms, and then diagnosed with cancer during the hospital stay. Again, these patients would, according to national procedures, usually have been guided by the EMCC or OOH services to a primary care doctor to get a medical examination and referral.

Hip fracture (S72) had a high proportion of direct admissions (58%), illustrating a condition where GP or OOH consultation often is not necessary in order to reveal the need for hospital care. This supports the finding of Skarshaug et al. where 50% of patients urgently admitted to hospital with hip fracture had no GP or OOH contact the month prior to emergency admission [27].

Referrals from nursing home doctors are not specified in our material but included in the direct admissions. We found the same proportion of direct admissions for patients between the age of 80–89 years as for the total population (43%), and only slightly increased direct admissions (47%) for patients 90 years and older. This indicates that admissions from nursing home doctors do not significantly affect the proportion of direct admissions.

Time of the day

The gatekeeping function was delivered by the GPs and OOHs doctor according to activity in the services, GP in the opening hours, and OOH doctors the rest of the week. The gatekeeper activity is slightly higher than direct admissions throughout the day, with a period in the morning, both on weekdays and weekends, where the direct admissions are more frequent than GP and OOH referrals. This might be because some emergencies are discovered in the morning when the patient and the relatives wake up, or by that the OOH and GP services have less capacity in the transition time between nightshift and daytime work.

Centrality

GPs and OOH doctors participate less in the emergency callouts in the most central regions in Norway [31, 32]. This may explain the low gatekeeper activity of GPs in the central area, but we did not find the same effect for OOH doctors. Thus, hyper-acute cases with callouts represent relatively few admissions, and therefore the effect of this is relatively sparse. The GPs’ low share of referrals to hospitals may rather be due to GPs in most central regions being less accessible for urgent consultations than their more rural colleagues, but this is not possible to investigate in the present study. Unlike Bankart et al. we found higher rates of emergency admissions in rural areas [7].

Interpretations

Based on our findings, Norwegian GPs and OOH doctors are gatekeepers in fewer emergency admissions to somatic hospitals than expected, when taking into account the rather strict gatekeeping system that is principally in place. The direct prehospital path representing admissions from ambulance services, referrals from nursing home doctors, and admissions initiated by hospital doctors, represent a larger part of the emergency admissions. This should be taken into account when planning health care services, including strategies in order to reduce hospital overload. On the other hand, there are many clinical conditions where both GPs’ and OOH doctors’ gatekeeping role are considerable.

Conclusions

GPs or OOH doctors referred many emergencies to somatic hospitals, and for some clinical conditions GPs’ and OOH doctors’ gatekeeping role was considerable. GP referrals were less frequent in the most central areas. A significant number of the emergency admissions had no GP or OOH doctor contact before admission. These direct admissions were more frequent in central areas, for highly urgent conditions and conditions likely to be followed up in specialist care at hospital. The proportion of direct admissions reduces the impact of the GPs’ and OOH doctors’ gatekeeper roles on emergency admissions, even in a strict gatekeeping system.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work has been performed in the scientific environment of the Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Bergen, Norway.

JB and SP has been participating in the Norwegian Research School in General Practice.

Parts of the work were carried out at the Biostatistics and Data analysis core facility (BIOS) and were thus supported by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Bergen and its partners.

Authors’ contributions

JB has contributed the research idea, the applying for license to perform the study, the data processing, the analyses and the writing of the manuscript. SH has been the main supervisor in all aspects of the study. He has contributed the designing and writing of the manuscript. SP has contributed considerable input to language and writing of the manuscript, including figures and tables. ØH has contributed statistical analyses and supervising on STATA, in addition to scientific input on research questions and the manuscript. HS has contributed scientific input on the research questions, the impact of the results and the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Funding

The research in this study has been funded by:

• The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice

• National Centre for Emergency Primary Health Care, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS

• Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen

The funding institutions have not taken part in the scientific work regarding design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, and writing of manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Regional Ethical Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Region West (30.01.2014) (reference number 2013/2344/REK vest) and Norwegian Data Protection Authority (15.09.2014) (reference number 14/0322–9/CGN). The Regional Ethical Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Region West gave permission to use the data without asking the patients for consent. Norwegian Data Protection Authority approved the use of the data for research purposes in this project. The register owners, Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Directorate of Health, approved linkage of registries. The data were pseudo anonymized by third party (Statistics Norway), and analyzed at group level to minimize the risk for individuals to be identified.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Deraas TS, Berntsen GR, Jones AP, Forde OH, Sund ER. Associations between primary healthcare and unplanned medical admissions in Norway: a multilevel analysis of the entire elderly population. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke RE, Rooks SP, Levy C, Schwartz R, Ginde AA. Identifying potentially preventable emergency department visits by nursing home residents in the United States. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16:395–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Posocco A, Scapinello MP, De Ronch I, Castrogiovanni F, Lollo G, Sergi G, et al. Role of out of hours primary care service in limiting inappropriate access to emergency department. Intern Emerg Med. 2018;13:549–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gunther S, Taub N, Rogers S, Baker R. What aspects of primary care predict emergency admission rates? A cross sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lillebo B, Dyrstad B, Grimsmo A. Avoidable emergency admissions? Emerg Med J. 2013;30:707–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Islam MK, Kjerstad E. Co-ordination of health care: the case of hospital emergency admissions. EurJ Health Econ. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1015-x Accessed 30 Apr 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bankart MJ, Baker R, Rashid A, Habiba M, Banerjee J, Hsu R, et al. Characteristics of general practices associated with emergency admission rates to hospital: a cross-sectional study. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:558–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O'Cathain A, Knowles E, Maheswaran R, Pearson T, Turner J, Hirst E, et al. A system-wide approach to explaining variation in potentially avoidable emergency admissions: national ecological study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohnke H, Zielinski A. Association between continuity of care in Swedish primary care and emergency services utilisation: a population-based cross-sectional study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2017;35:113–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lo AX, Flood KL, Biese K, Platts-Mills TF, Donnelly JP, Carpenter CR. Factors associated with hospital admission for older adults receiving care in U.S. emergency departments. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72:1105–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tammes P, Purdy S, Salisbury C, MacKichan F, Lasserson D, Morris RW. Continuity of primary care and emergency hospital admissions among older patients in England. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15:515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barker I, Steventon A, Deeny SR. Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ. 2017;356:j84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkatesh AK, Dai Y, Ross JS, Schuur JD, Capp R, Krumholz HM. Variation in US hospital emergency department admission rates by clinical condition. Med Care. 2015;53:237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenfield G, Foley K, Majeed A. Rethinking primary care's gatekeeper role. BMJ. 2016;354:i4803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velasco Garrido M, Zentner A, Busse R. The effects of gatekeeping: a systematic review of the literature. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011;29:28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Frequent attenders at primary care out-of-hours services: a registry-based observational study in Norway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grondahl JR, Fossdal O, Hauge-Iversen T, Husebye E, Rosvold EO, Kongshavn T. Admissions to the medical department - who admits and why. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2018;138:727–33.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zakariassen E, Blinkenberg J, Hansen EH, Nieber T, Thesen J, Bondevik GT, et al. Locations, facilities and routines in Norwegian out-of-hours emergency primary health care services. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007;127:1339–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hetlevik O, Gjesdal S. Personal continuity of care in Norwegian general practice: a national cross-sectional study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012;30:214–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forskrift om fastlegeordning i kommunene (Regulation relating to a Municipal Regular GP Scheme) (In Norwegian), 2012. https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2012-08-29-842. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  21. 21.
    Forskrift om krav til og organisering av kommunal legevaktordning, ambulansetjeneste, medisinsk nødmelddetjeneste mv. (Regulation on organization of emergency services) (In Norwegian), (2015). https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2015-03-20-231. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  22. 22.
    Morken T, Midtbo V, Zachariassen SM. Organization of out-of-hour services in Norway (In Norwegian). Report No.: 4. Bergen: National Center for Emergency Primary Health Care, Uni Research Helse, 2014; 2014. http://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/8352. Accessed 30 Apr 2019
  23. 23.
    Hoydahl E. New centrality index for muncipalities in Norway (In Norwegian), Statistics Norway, 2017. https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/ny-sentralitetsindeks-for-kommunene. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  24. 24.
    WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed 30 Apr 2019.
  25. 25.
    Vest-Hansen B, Riis AH, Sorensen HT, Christiansen CF. Out-of-hours and weekend admissions to Danish medical departments: admission rates and 30-day mortality for 20 common medical conditions. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Franks P, Clancy CM, Nutting PA. Gatekeeping revisited--protecting patients from overtreatment. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:424–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Skarshaug LJ, Svedal ER, Bjorngaard JH, Steinsbekk A, Pape K. Contact with primary health care physisians before an acute hospitalization. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019;9:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nasjonal faglig retningslinje for behandling og rehabilitering ved hjerneslag. (National stroke guidelines) (In Norwegian), (2017). https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/hjerneslag Accessed 12 July 2019.
  29. 29.
    Doggen CJ, Zwerink M, Droste HM, Brouwers PJ, van Houwelingen GK, van Eenennaam FL, et al. Prehospital paths and hospital arrival time of patients with acute coronary syndrome or stroke, a prospective observational study. BMC Emerg Med. 2016;16:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Faiz KW, Sundseth A, Thommessen B, Ronning OM. Prehospital path in acute stroke. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2017;137:798–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zakariassen E, Hunskaar S. Involvement in emergency situations by primary care doctors on-call in Norway--a prospective population-based observational study. BMC Emerg Med. 2010;10:5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zakariassen E, Hunskaar S. Correction: involvement in emergency situations by primary care doctors on-call in Norway--a prospective population-based observational study. BMC Emerg Med. 2012;12:5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Emergency Primary Health CareNORCE Norwegian Research CentreBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Global Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations