You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Asking parents about out-of-hospital models of acute care
  1. Sarah Jennifer Gregg1,2,
  2. Marilyn McDougall3,
  3. Tina Sajjanhar2
  1. 1 King’s College London, London, UK
  2. 2 Paediatric Emergency Department, University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK
  3. 3 Paediatric Intensive Care, Evelina Childrens Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sarah Jennifer Gregg, PED, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK; sarahjennifergregg{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317548

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.

    In reference to the published article by Viner et al,1 I would like to share the results of our recently conducted research (IRAS number 245821) and comment on its relevance to the structure of the care provided for children in the National Health Service (NHS).

    The aforementioned evidence1 suggests that a large proportion of children presenting to paediatric emergency departments (EDs) could be managed in proposed out-of-hospital models of care (OOHMs) described by the Five Year Forward View (FYFV) and the NHS Long Term Plan2 (LTP) but makes no assessment of patient choice and behaviour.

    The primary objective of our mixed method study was to evaluate whether parents would choose the new OOHMs if established instead of EDs and explore …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The authors would like to acknowledge the kind contribution of Dr Shane Tibby and Dr Simon Broughton for their support overseeing the design of this MSc research project. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Miss Emma Gardiner and Miss Rose-Marie Satherley for their kind support with data collection and thematic analysis of the data, respectively.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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