This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

GP clinical judgement leads to 20% fewer referrals than NEWS score, finds study

The new requirement for GPs to use the national early warning score (NEWS) to decide when to refer patients to hospital could increase referrals by almost 20% when compared with using their own judgement, a study of out-of-hours services has suggested.

GPs in England will be asked for the score - which assesses the six vital signs - when calling for an ambulance, and those behind the research said they were aware of some OOH services already routinely using NEWS.

Commenting on the findings, GP leaders said the use of NEWS reduces medicine to a 'tick-box' exercise and could lead to the wrong course of action for patients when calling for an ambulance or referring to hospital.

They said the study showed the importance of GPs being able to use their own judgement - contradicting claims that GPs rely too heavily on ambulance services.

Researchers from the University of Birmingham, who looked at around 75,000 records from patients in the city between 2013 and 2018, found GPs in OOH services decided against referring around two-thirds who would have met the threshold under the NEWS system.

By calculating the scores retrospectively, the researchers found if all patients who met the NEWS threshold had been referred, this would have meant a 16.2% increase in referral rates - or 26,500 extra hospital attendances every year in England.

The researchers said GPs may have decided not to refer because some patients' problems can be managed in the community.

They concluded their findings show the NEWS system 'does not align consistently with referral decisions'.

More research is needed on the clinical impact of scoring OOH patients, to inform policy recommendations on the use of NEWS, they added.

The study, published in Emergency Medicine Journal, looked at the records of 74,914 patients who had a face-to-face OOH general practice consultation.

It found just under half of patients would have had a score of 0 and around 7% would have scored >5 , which is the point for referral to hospital due to the increased risk of an adverse event.

Of those with a score of >5, two-thirds of patients were managed in the community and not referred to hospital.

The authors said in the paper: ‘In the setting of primary care, NEWS does not align consistently with referral decisions.

'There are likely to be a variety of other factors influencing referral decisions that are particularly relevant to this setting including limited (or no) access to patient records and investigations, a lack of alternative care pathways and poor social and healthcare support mechanisms out-of-hours.

‘At the same time, a decision not to refer could be because the patient’s problem can be managed in the community, with an appropriate safety net and follow-up advice.

‘Further research should provide evidence of the clinical impact of the introduction of early warning score-based decision making in out-of-hours general practice in order to inform recommendations on its use.’ 

Lead author and academic GP Dr Sam Finnikin told Pulse that more research was needed to understand whether it was safe for patients with a high NEWS not to be admitted to hospital - but more importantly whether the scoring system skews GPs' judgement.

He said: 'Proponents of NEWS will argue it is not designed to replace clinical decision making.

'But the problem with this is that humans will automatically focus on numbers and cut-offs, especially when we are cognitively overloaded, so the routine use of NEWS  - which is being recommended - may increase referral of patients with a raised NEWS and decrease referral of patients with low NEWS. But the impact of clinical outcomes is unknown.'

He added: 'The introduction of NEWS in primary care without understanding the impact it may have on decision making could have untoward negative consequences in terms of over- or under-admitting patients.’

Former BMA GP Committee urgent care lead and Derbyshire GP Dr Peter Holden, said: 'To be told that the computer won’t accept your ambulance booking without a NEWS score is just not acceptable.

'Just because it doesn't add up, it doesn't mean that the patient shouldn't go in, because there are other factors that apply. For example, are they living alone? Or even a simple one - are we about to get a snowstorm?'

He added: 'The fact is that people assume that only clinical matters determine hospital admission. It’s a classic problem that people think that diagnosis is simple and fits in boxes – it doesn’t and that’s why it takes 12 years to train a GP.'

Dr Holden also said: 'The biggest objection is that NEWS is not validated for use in the community, so why are we using it?'

NHS England released guidance in 2019 advising GPs to use a NEWS score when requesting an ambulance, which the BMA said could be used as a ‘barrier’ to accessing emergency care.

Pulse's investigation into ambulance services last year revealed 999 calls from GPs were taking twice as long to be responded to as calls from members of the public.

GPs claimed under-pressure ambulance services are delaying their arrival due to the mistaken belief that patients are safe if a doctor is present.

 

Related images

  • GPs on call - OOH - out of hours - urgent care - online

Readers' comments (30)

  • DrRubbishBin

    I don't know what at GP is if it isn't a subtle nuanced human diagnosis and assessment machine - why anyone would think a basic screening tool would be better at deciding wether someone needs admission to hospital or not is beyond me. These kind of diktats from on high are simplistic and, when made compulsory, totally stupid

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It works the other way as well. Just because the NEWS score is

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I remember having the deal with NEWS scoring as a house officer. It's a useful tool for someone to identify if someone is ill who has little or no clinical training. I really cant see it being useful for us. The worry is it'll used against us if we ever miss anything and didnt admit everyone who has a raised NEWS score. I feel sorry for A&E

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No surprise there: a score used to safety net patients assessed by those with limited clinical training versus being used by someone who knows what they are doing. Furthermore individual elements of the score system are hidden within a global score which impairs, not strengthens the decision making process.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Kindly consider retirement if you are surprised by this study result.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nobody is surprised but how are the pen pushers going to audit and control us if we do not do it and keep themselves in a job?
    One of the reasons why it is so insulting, depressing and demeaning to work in the NHS.
    Zero professional freedom and getting all the blame. Taking orders from people who has either not been to medical school or who are less experienced and less resilient and cannot do full time GP work.
    Take us private BMA, it will force some pen pushers to actually see some patients as doctors are meant to do.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    (1) Old cliche: One size can never fit all . A lesson academics and policy maker never bloody learn .
    (2) Stop undermining the importance of clinical judgement GPs . The assumption that GPs are f***ing crap ( especially government propaganda media ) must be repudiated.
    (3) Which leads to my same old saying ( you are all bored of it ) , you need us, GP , more than we need you .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And of course this will apply to all other risk scores, cancer/Qrisk etc etc. The only use is to a lawyer to use it as a stick to batter us with.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Ok , let me put my rage aside ( as I promised my LMC secretary to behave these days !)

    What is the telos of using this score ?
    Is it to admit potentially more patients to hospital as an emergency or less ?
    (1)If it is more to cover so called missed cases , what is the specificity of this scoring system as a criteria satisfying any screening tool . The commonest fallacy is something with a high sensitivity but poor specificity . That is quintessential in the case of two-week-wait rule for cancer referrals for certain symptoms and signs and we have that in PSA blood test. Hence , you end up with more false positive cases being admitted to hospitals as emergency . Can you afford that ?
    (2)If , by any chance , this is about less admission( which stakeholders would be happy to save resources ) , you can easily end up in the situation where GPs are rejected for a decision to admit the patient simply because the score is not high enough to qualify asking for an ambulance.
    (3)Which leads to the confusing , uncertain circumstances where the patients were scoring somewhere in the middle of the scale . The responsible decision made by the GP on site is still paramount, not the score . But obviously , if the case goes wrong , the score could be used by lawyers to argue about the medico-legal liability of the GP , one way or the other .

    The tool , like many others , is only there to FACILITATE GPs to make the appropriate and correct(retrospectively) decision .
    For all these academics , please get into the elevator of your ivory tower and say to your colleague , ‘Ground floor , please’ .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Already being asked for in Sheffield, complete waste of time. Nice to know we have proof that it is inappropriate

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say