Background In Belgium, General Practitioner Cooperatives (GPC) aim to improve working conditions for unplanned care and to reduce the number of low acuity emergency visits. Although this system is well organized, the number of low acuity visits does not decrease. Methods We explored the view of patients and physicians on the co-location of a GPC and an emergency service for unplanned care. The study was carried out in a cross section design in primary and emergency care services and included patients and physicians. Main outcome measure was the view of patients and physician on co-location of a GPC and an emergency service. Results 404 patients and 488 physicians participated. 334 (82.7%) of all patients favoured a co-location. The major advantages were fast service (104, 25.7) and adequate referral (54, 13.4%). 237 (74%) of the GPs and 38 (95%) of the emergency physicians were in favour of a co-location. The major advantage was a more adequate referral of patients. 254 (79%) of the GPs and 23 (83%) of the emergency physicians believed that a co-location would lower the workload and waiting time and increase care quality (resp. 251 (78%), 224 (70%) and 37 (93%), 34 (85%). Conclusions To close the expectation gap between GP’s, emergency physicians and to reach for high care quality, information campaigns and development of workflows are indispensable for a successful implementation of a co-location of primary and emergency care.

Background In Belgium, General Practitioner Cooperatives (GPC) aim to improve working conditions for unplanned care and to reduce the number of inappropriate emergency visits. Although this system is well organised, the number of inappropriate visits does not decrease. Methods We explored the position of patients and physicians on the co-location of a GPC and an emergency service for unplanned care. The study was carried out in a cross section design in primary and emergency care services, including patients and physicians. Main outcome measures were the position of patients and physician on co-location a GPC and an emergency service. Results 404 patients and 488 physicians participated. 334 (82.7%) of all patients favored a co-location. The most important advantages were fast service (104, 25.7) and adequate referral (54, 13.4%). 237 (74%) of the GP’s and 38 (95%) of the emergency physicians were in favor of a co-location. The major advantage of this system was a more adequate referral of patients. 254 (79%) of the GP’s and 23 (83%) of the emergency physicians believed that a co-location would lower the workload, decrease waiting time and increase care quality (resp. 251 (78%), 224 (70%) and 37 (93%), 34 (85%). Conclusions To meet all concerns and to reach for high care quality information campaigns and development of workflows are necessary for a successful implementation of a co-location of primary and emergency care.