Background The NHS 111 service triages over 16,650,745 calls per year and approximately 48% of callers are triaged to a primary care disposition, such as a telephone appointment with a general practitioner (GP). However, there has been little assessment of the ability of primary care services to meet this demand. If a timely service cannot be provided to patients, it could result in patients calling 999 or attending emergency departments (ED) instead.

This study aimed to explore the patient journey for callers who were triaged to a primary care disposition, and the ability of primary care services to meet this demand.

Methods We obtained routine, retrospective data from the Connected Yorkshire research database, and identified all 111 calls between the 1st January 2021 and 31st December 2021 for callers registered with a GP in the Bradford or Airedale region of West Yorkshire, who were triaged to a primary care disposition. Subsequent healthcare system access (111, 999, primary and secondary care) in the 72 hours following the index 111 call was identified, and a descriptive analysis of the healthcare trajectory of patients was undertaken.

Results There were 56,102 index 111 calls, and a primary care service was the first interaction in 26,690/56,102 (47.6%) of cases, with 15,470/26,690 (58%) commenced within the specified triage time frame. Calls to 999 were higher in the cohort who had no prior contact with primary care (58% vs 42%) as were ED attendances (58.2% vs 41.8), although the proportion of avoidable ED attendances was similar (10.5% vs 11.8%).

Conclusion Less than half of 111 callers triaged to a primary care disposition make contact with a primary care service, and even when they do, call triage time frames are frequently not met, suggesting that current primary care provision cannot meet the demand from 111.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber and South West Peninsula. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study was approved by the Bradford Learning Health System Board in accordance with the Connected Yorkshire NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) approvals relating to the Connected Yorkshire research database (17/EM/0254).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The data used in this study was derived from the Connected Yorkshire research database and as such cannot be freely shared. However, access to source data can be obtained by following the Connected Yorkshire research database application process.