Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A mixed methods study of the impact of consultant overnight working in an English Emergency Department
  1. Marion L Penn1,
  2. Thomas Monks1,
  3. Catherine Pope1,
  4. Mike Clancy2
  1. 1 NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton Faculty of Health Sciences, Southampton, UK
  2. 2 Emergency Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Monks, NIHR CLAHRC Wessex, University of Southampton Faculty of Health Sciences, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK; thomas.monks{at}soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Background There is a growing expectation that consultant-level doctors should be present within an ED overnight. However, there is a lack of robust evidence substantiating the impact on patient waiting times, safety or the workforce.

Objectives To evaluate the impact of consultant-level doctors overnight working in ED in a large university hospital.

Methods We conducted a controlled interrupted time series analysis to study ED waiting times before and after the introduction of consultant night working. Adverse event reports (AER) were used as a surrogate for patient safety. We conducted interviews with medical and nursing staff to explore attitudes to night work.

Results The reduction seen in average time in department relative to the day, following the introduction of consultant was non-significant (−12 min; 95% CI −28 to 4, p=0.148). Analysis of hourly arrivals and departures indicated that overnight work was inherited from the day. There were three (0.9%) moderate and 0 severe AERs in 1 year. The workforce reported that night working had a negative impact on sleep patterns, performance and well-being and there were mixed views about the benefits of consultant night presence. Additional time off during the day acted as compensation for night work but resulted in reduced contact with ED teams.

Conclusions Our single-site study was unable to demonstrate a clinically important impact of consultant night working on total time patients spend in the department. Our analysis suggests there may be more potential to reduce total time in department during the day, at our study site. Negative impacts on well-being, and likely resistance to consultant night working should not be ignored. Further studies of night working are recommended to substantiate our results.

  • emergency department
  • efficiency
  • safety
  • quality

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors MP, TM, CP and MC conceived and designed the study, and obtained research approvals. CP interviewed local workforce and analysed the qualitative data. MC interviewed external workforce and analysed the qualitative data. MC analysed quantitative data related to adverse events. MP and TM analysed the quantitative data related to ED waiting times. All authors drafted the manuscript and contributed substantially to its revision. TM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

  • Funding This article presents independent research jointly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Wessex and University Hospital Southampton.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

  • Competing interests The authors report that the study was partly funded by the University Hospital studied.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the University of Southampton Ethics Committee (reference 27876).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.