Background Whilst many health systems offer a range of urgent and emergency care services to deal with the need for unscheduled care, these can be problematic to navigate. Objective To explore how lay people make sense of urgent care provision and processes. Design Qualitative study, incorporating citizen panels and longitudinal semi‐structured qualitative interviews. Setting and Participants Two citizens’ panels, comprising purposively selected public populations—a group of regular users and a group of potentially marginalized users of urgent and emergency care. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 100 people, purposively sampled to include those over 75, aged 18‐26 years, and from East/Central Europe. A sub‐sample of 41 people received a second interview at +6‐12 months. Framework analysis was thematic and comparative, moving through coding to narrative and interpretive summaries. Findings and Discussion Participants narratives illuminated considerable uncertainty and confusion regarding urgent and emergency care provision which in part could be traced to the contingent nature of urgent and emergency care need. Accounts of emergency care provision were underpinned by strong moral positioning of appropriate help‐seeking, demarcating legitimate service use that echoed policy rhetoric, but did not necessarily translate into individual behaviour. People struggled to make sense of urgent care provision making navigating “appropriate” use problematic. Conclusions The focus on help‐seeking behaviour, rather than sense‐making, makes it difficult to move beyond the polarization of “appropriate” and “inappropriate” service use. A deeper analysis of sense‐making might shift the focus of attention and allow us to intervene to reshape understandings before this point.

Background: Theoretical models have sought to comprehend and conceptualise how people seek help from health professionals but it is unclear if such models apply to urgent care. Much previous research does not explain the complex interactions that influence how people make sense of urgent care and how this shapes service use. This paper aims to conceptualise the complexity of sense-making and help-seeking behaviour in peoples' everyday evaluations of when and how to access modern urgent care provision. Methods: This study comprised longitudinal semi-structured interviews undertaken in the South of England. We purposively sampled participants 75+, 18-26 years, and from East/Central Europe (sub-sample of 41 received a second interview at + 6-12 months). Framework analysis was thematic and comparative. Results: The amount and nature of the effort (work) undertaken to make sense of urgent care was an overarching theme of the analysis. We distinguished three distinct types of work: illness work, moral work and navigation work. These take place at an individual level but are also shared or delegated across social networks and shaped by social context and time. We have developed a conceptual model that shows how people make sense of urgent care through work which then influences help-seeking decisions and action. Conclusions: There are important intersections between individual work and their social networks, further shaped by social context and time, to influence help-seeking. Recognising different, hidden or additional work for some groups may help design and configure services to support patient work in understanding and navigating urgent care.

BackgroundPolicy has been focused on reducing unnecessary emergency department attendances by providing more responsive urgent care services and guiding patients to ‘the right place’. The variety of services has created a complex urgent care landscape for people to access and navigate.ObjectivesTo describe how the public, providers and policy-makers define and make sense of urgent care; to explain how sense-making influences patients’ strategies and choices; to analyse patient ‘work’ in understanding, navigating and choosing urgent care; to explain urgent care utilisation; and to identify potentially modifiable factors in decision-making.DesignMixed-methods sequential design.SettingFour counties in southern England coterminous with a NHS 111 provider area.MethodsA literature review of policy and research combined with citizens’ panels and serial qualitative interviews. Four citizens’ panels were conducted with the public, health-care professionals, commissioners and managers (n = 41). Three populations were sampled for interview: people aged ≥ 75 years, people aged 18–26 years and East European people. In total, 134 interviews were conducted. Analyses were integrated to develop a conceptual model of urgent care help-seeking.FindingsThe literature review identified some consensus between policy and provider perspectives regarding the physiological factors that feature in conceptualisations of urgent care. However, the terms ‘urgent’ and ‘emergency’ lack specificity or consistency in meaning. Boundaries between urgent and emergency care are ill-defined. We constructed a typology that distinguishes three types of work that take place at both the individual and social network levels in relation to urgent care sense-making and help-seeking.Illness workinvolves interpretation and decision-making about the meaning, severity and management of physical symptoms and psychological states, and the assessment and management of possible risks. Help-seeking was guided bymoral work: the legitimation and sanctioning done by service users.Navigation workconcerned choosing and accessing services and relied on prior knowledge of what was available, accessible and acceptable. From these empirical data, we developed a model of urgent care sense-making and help-seeking behaviour that emphasises that work informs the interaction between what we think and feel about illness and the need to seek care (sense-making) and action – the decisions we take and how we use urgent care (help-seeking).LimitationsThe sample population of our three groups may not have adequately reflected a diverse range of views and experiences. The study enabled us to capture people’s views and self-reported service use rather than their actual behaviour.ConclusionsMuch of the policy surrounding urgent and emergency care is predicated on the notion that ‘urgent’ sits neatly between emergency and routine; however, service users in particular struggle to distinguish urgent from emergency or routine care. Rather than focusing on individual sense-making, future work should attend to social and temporal contexts that have an impact on help-seeking (e.g. why people find it more difficult to manage pain at night), and how different social networks shape service use.Future workA whole-systems approach considering integration across a wider network of partners is key to understanding the complex relationships between demand for and access to urgent care.Study registrationThis study is registered as UKCRN 32207.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background Use of emergency department (ED) care globally seems to be increasing at a faster rate than population growth (Baker, House of Commons Library. Accident and Emergency Statistics, Demand, Performance, 2017). In the UK there has been a reported 16% rise in emergency admissions over the past 5 years. Estimates that between 11 and 40% of ED attendances are non-urgent, with 11% of patients being discharged from the ED without treatment (NHS Digital 2017), and a further 44% require no follow-up treatment (NHS Digital, Hospital Accident and Emergency Activity 2016-17, 2019) is cited as evidence that these patients did not require this level of care. The solution to not using the most appropriate point in the system has traditionally been seen as a knowledge problem, requiring, improved sign-posting and information to enable people to self-manage or use health care management for minor ailments. However research about help-seeking behaviour suggests that the problem may not be an informational one. A considerable literature points to help seeking as a social process influenced by a range of contingencies and contextual factors including the way in which lay people influence health care utilisation (Giebel et al. BMJ Open 9:1, 2019). Personal communities comprise a variety of active and significant social ties which have potential to influence individual capacity to seek help. Here we extend and unpack further influencing decisions about seeking formal health care with reference to how they are shaped and informed by and within personal social networks. Methods We undertook a personal network mapping and qualitative interview-based study to look at, problematize and understand attendance for non-urgent problems. We used network analysis and methods to map and characterise the personal communities of people seeking help from ED for minor ailments and semi-structured interviews with 40 people attending a single ED and associated GP hub providing equivalent care. Interviews were built around an ego network mapping activity and a topic guide structured to explore attender’s narratives about why they had visited the ED. This ego network activity uses a diagram consisting of three concentric circles (Fiori et al. J Gerontol B-Psychol 62: 322-30, 2007), representing closest social network members (in the centre) and those at further distance. Participants were initially presented with one of these diagrams and asked to write names of people or resources that had played a role in their attendance and the interviewer probed the interviewee to discuss the actions, input and value of the people and services that supported the visit to the ED. Results We analysed number and type of network connections and undertook a thematic analysis to identify how imagined and actual network members and influences were implicated in ED attendance. The network maps created during the interviews were examined and a typology of networks was developed and used to distinguish different types of networks informed by our reading of the data, and a Network Typology Scoring Tool, a measure of frequency of contact and relationship type in networks. Conclusions Our study suggests that faced with acute minor illness or injury people’s networks narrow: they do not (and perhaps cannot) mobilise their imagined care network because the resources or connections may not be there or are difficult to engage. In addition we identified important system drivers of behaviour, notably that these patients are often directed to the ED by ‘professional influencers’ including health services staff.

No abstract