Self-rated worry in acute care telephone triage: a mixed-methods study

Hejdi Gamst-Jensen, Linda Huibers, Kristoffer Pedersen, Erika F Christensen, Annette K Ersbøll, Freddy K Lippert, Ingrid Egerod, Hejdi Gamst-Jensen, Linda Huibers, Kristoffer Pedersen, Erika F Christensen, Annette K Ersbøll, Freddy K Lippert, Ingrid Egerod

Abstract

Background: Telephone triage is used to assess acute illness or injury. Clinical decision making is often assisted by triage tools that lack callers' perspectives. This study analysed callers' perception of urgency, defined as degree of worry in acute care telephone calls.

Aim: To explore the caller's ability to quantify their degree of worry, the association between degree of worry and variables related to the caller, the effect of degree of worry on triage outcome, and the thematic content of the caller's worry.

Design and setting: A mixed-methods study with simultaneous convergent design combining descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of 180 calls to a Danish out-of-hours service.

Method: The following quantitative data were measured: age of caller, sex, reason for encounter, symptom duration, triage outcome, and degree of worry (rated from 1 = minimally worried to 5 = extremely worried). Qualitative data consisted of audio-recorded telephone calls.

Results: Most callers (170 out of 180) were able to scale their worry when contacting the out-of-hours service (median = 3, interquartile range = 2-4, mean = 2.76). Degree of worry was associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.98, 95% CI = 1.13 to 3.45) and symptom duration (>24 hours: OR 2.01, 95% CI = 1.13 to 3.45) (reference <5 hours), but not with age or reason for encounter. A high degree of worry significantly increased the chance of being triaged to a face-to-face consultation. The thematic content of worry varied from emotions of feeling bothered to feeling distressed. Callers provided more contextual information when asked about their degree of worry.

Conclusion: Callers were able to rate their degree of worry. The degree of worry scale is feasible for larger-scale studies if incorporating a patient-centred approach in out-of-hours telephone triage.

Keywords: after-hours care; computer-assisted decision making; mixed methods; patient participation; self-rated worry; telephone helpline; triage.

© British Journal of General Practice 2018.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart showing number of calls included.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Odds ratio for being triaged to face-to-face consultation versus telephone consultation only.a a Degree of worry (DOW) 1 is used as reference. Model adjusted for sex and age

References

    1. Idler EL, Benyamini Y. Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav. 1997;38(1):21–37.
    1. van Ierland Y, van Veen M, Huibers L, et al. Validity of telephone and physical triage in emergency care: the Netherlands Triage System. Fam Pract. 2011;28(3):334–341.
    1. Derkx HP. ‘For your ears only’. Quality of telephone triage at out-of-hours centres in the Netherlands. the Netherlands: Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht; 2008. (accessed 24 Jan 2018)
    1. Cresswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2011.
    1. Wadmann S, Kjellberg J, Kjellberg K. Enstrenget og visiteret akutsystem i Region Hovedstaden. Copenhagen : 2015. [Single-stranded and well-visited acute system in the capital region].
    1. Duncan GH, Bushnell MC, Lavigne GJ. Comparison of verbal and visual analogue scales for measuring the intensity and unpleasantness of experimental pain. Pain. 1989;37(3):295–303.
    1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–1499.
    1. McLellan E, MacQueen KM, Neidig JL. Beyond the qualitative interview: data preparation and transcription. Field Methods. 2003;15(1):63–84.
    1. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009. Analyzing focus group results. pp. 113–132.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications; 2013.
    1. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2015. pii: 1049732315617444 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357.
    1. Laakso V, Niemi PM, Grönroos M, et al. The worried young adult as a primary care patient. Fam Pract. 2005;22(4):406–411.
    1. Laakso V, Niemi PM, Grönroos M, Karlsson H. Relieved after GP’s consultation? Change in the complaint-related worry of young adult patients. Psychol Health Med. 2008;13(3):291–302.
    1. Laakso V, Niemi PM. Primary health-care patients’ reasons for complaint-related worry and relief. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2013;14(2):151–163.
    1. Leventhal H, Nerenz DR, Steele DJ. Illness repesentations and coping with health threats. In: Baum A, Taylor SE, Singer JE, editors. Handbook of psychology and health. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1984. pp. 219–252.
    1. Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Dunkel-Schetter C, et al. Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50(5):992–1003.
    1. Kolk AM, Hanewald GJ, Schagen S, Gijsbers van Wijk CM. A symptom perception approach to common physical symptoms. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(12):2343–2354.
    1. Christensen AI, Ekholm O, Davidsen M, Juel K. Sundhed og sygelighed i Danmark — og udviklingen siden 1987. State Institute for Public Health, University of Southern Denmark; 2012. [Health and morbidity in Denmark — and the development since 1987.] (accessed 24 Jan 2018)
    1. Mautner D, Peterson B, Cunningham A, et al. How Multidimensional Health Locus of Control predicts utilization of emergency and inpatient hospital services. J Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):314–323.
    1. Moth G, Flarup L, Christensen MB, et al. Kontakt-og sygdomsmønsteret i lægevagten. LV-KOS; 2011. [The contact and disease pattern in medical service]. (accessed 24 Jan 2018)
    1. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57(2):153–157.
    1. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: myths and misconceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79(3):277–282.
    1. Hollnagel H, Malterud K. From risk factors to health resources in medical practice. Med Health Care Philos. 2000;3(3):257–264.
    1. McBride CM, Emmons KM, Lipkus IM. Understanding the potential of teachable moments: the case of smoking cessation. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(2):156–170.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere