Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2025 Dec;31(1):2520218.
doi: 10.1080/13814788.2025.2520218. Epub 2025 Jun 27.

General Practice-led urgent care practice vs. emergency room - satisfaction of ambulatory patients with low urgency medical problems

Katharina Schmalstieg-Bahr  1 , Bastian Bessert  1 , Penelope-Sophie Peters  1 , Johanna Sophie Bobardt  1 , Ulrich Mayer-Runge  2 , Martin Scherer  1 , Jan Oltrogge-Abiry  1
Affiliations
Observational Study

General Practice-led urgent care practice vs. emergency room - satisfaction of ambulatory patients with low urgency medical problems

Katharina Schmalstieg-Bahr et al. Eur J Gen Pract. 2025 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Emergency room (ER) utilisation by ambulatory patients with low urgency medical problems leads to ER-capacity use and long waiting times. Establishing General Practice (GP)-led urgent care practices (UCP) adjacent to ERs allows to triage patients from the ER to the UCP. However, patients may perceive themselves as ER-cases and expect ER-treatment including extensive diagnostics.

Objectives: To assess UCP-patients' satisfaction compared to ambulatory ER-patients.

Methods: Sub-analysis (11/2019-01/2020) of a prospective, monocentric observational study at the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf ER and co-located UCP focusing on patient survey data including demographics, waiting time and diagnoses. Satisfaction, uncertainty and appropriateness of waiting time was assessed with 4-point Likert-scales.

Results: Analysing 1196 UCP- and 597 ER-patients, patient satisfaction correlated positively with perceived appropriate waiting time in both groups. But more UCP-patients deemed their waiting time appropriate (76.7% vs. 70.4%; p = 0.004) and reported to be very satisfied with the treatment (64.7% vs. 55.8%; p < 0.001). Time until the first physician contact was nearly equal, but the entire length of stay was shorter in the UCP (104 ± 88.0 min vs. 179 ± 301 min; p < 0.001). In both groups, satisfaction was reduced by on-going uncertainty after the visit, but uncertainty was higher among UCP-patients (32% vs. 25%; p = 0.003). Age, gender or diagnosis had no influence on patients' satisfaction. More UCP-patients stated that today's problem could have been treated by a GP (57% vs. 15%; p < 0.001) and were advised to follow up in an outpatient setting.

Conclusions: Treating patients in an UCP does not lead to overall dissatisfaction.

Keywords: Primary care; ambulatory emergency room patients; patient satisfaction; urgent care practice; waiting time.

Plain language summary

Emergency room (ER)- and urgent care practice (UCP)-patients’ satisfaction correlated positively with a perceived appropriate waiting time, but more UCP-patients stated that their waiting time was appropriate.Satisfaction correlated negatively with on-going uncertainty after the visit; uncertainty was higher among UCP-patients.Age, gender or diagnosis had no influence on patients’ satisfaction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Overview of the recruitment process (November 2019–January 2020). *Depending on their self-reported symptoms, some patients who initially talked to the ER-triage staff were directly sent to the UCP and did not become registered ER-patients. But only those who consented and answered the survey were asked if they came from the ER.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. McKenna P, Heslin SM, Viccellio P, et al. Emergency department and hospital crowding: causes, consequences, and cures. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2019;6(3):189–195. doi: 10.15441/ceem.18.022. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, et al. Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0203316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203316. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoot NR, Aronsky D.. Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(2):126–136. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.03.014. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Naouri D, Ranchon G, Vuagnat A, et al. Factors associated with inappropriate use of emergency departments: findings from a cross-sectional national study in France. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(6):449–464. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009396. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Magnusson C, Ryge H, Scott F, et al. Limited need for hospital resources among patients brought to hospital by the emergency medical services. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00549-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources