Outpatients revisited: subjective views and clinical decisions in the management of general surgical outpatients in south west England

The dermatology outpatient discharge decision: understanding a critical but neglected process

Discharge from dermatology outpatients is a critical endpoint of patient care. Despite this, there has been very little research concerning the discharge process and factors influencing the discharge decision. To identify the factors influencing discharge decisions, articles from 1970 to April 2013 were searched in MEDLINE via Ovid, CINAHL, PROQUEST and Google Scholar using the keywords 'patient discharge', 'discharge decision', 'factors influencing discharge', 'clinical decision making', 'discharge decision making', 'process of discharge decision', 'outpatient', 'follow up', 'skin disease' and 'dermatology'. Only articles describing outpatient discharge decisions were included. Seventeen outpatient discharge articles were identified, 12 from the U.K. (seven dermatology) and five from the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Taiwan (all nondermatology). The main influences on outpatient discharge identified were diagnosis and disease severity, clinician's level of experience and perception, patient's preferences, patient's behaviour and quality of life. These influences affected the clinician's judgement on discharge decisions both in appropriate and in inappropriate ways. Little is known concerning discharge decision making in dermatology. Given the central importance of such decisions in the appropriate care of patients and the efficient running of any dermatology service, greater understanding of the influences on discharge decision making is needed. It is therefore critical for dermatologists to be aware of these influences and to ensure that decisions are taken only in the best interests of patients. Further research is required to inform the training of dermatologists on how to take the most appropriate discharge decisions.

Is there a need for postoperative follow-up after routine urogynaecological procedures? Patients will self-present if they have problems

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The value of outpatient appointments for postoperative review has been questioned for many years, and the surgeon practice around this issue is varied. The aim of this study, as part of a larger study assessing postoperative follow-up, was to assess how many patients self-present to their general practitioner (GP) or the emergency department after surgery for urogynaecology procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of postoperative urogynaecology patients between 2007 and 2012 was performed using the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) database to identify patients. These records were correlated with hospital and GP records to assess whether any patient was seen postoperatively for a procedure-related problem.

RESULTS

There were 244 patients with complete data on the BSUG database, of whom 25 (10 %) presented to hospital/secondary care in the year following their surgery; only three of these were admitted for problems related to their surgery. There was a response rate of 70 % from GPs for access to their records. This represented 171 patients, 90 of whom (52.3 %) presented to their GP within a year of surgery mostly for a minor procedure-related event: 11 of these were re-referred to secondary care, and the remainder were treated in the community.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important aspect of patient care is safety, and this should not be compromised if, for example, postoperative review were to be moved to primary care. As expected, this study shows that patients will self-present if they have problems postoperatively.

Outpatient general surgical follow-up: are we using this resource effectively?

BACKGROUND

Raised patient expectations and the 2-week rule for the investigation of suspected malignancy have led to heightened demands on surgical outpatient clinics. In this context, the utility of benign post-operative or investigative follow-ups requires justification.

METHODS

The surgical outpatient clinic workload of four substantive general surgeons at a typical DGH was analysed over a 4-week period. All notes were examined to identify referral source, management plan and whether that clinic attendance was justified.

RESULTS

Twenty three clinics (410 patients) were examined over the period of this study. Three hundred and twenty one patient episodes were examined; 52 episodes did not occur due to patient non-attendance and 37 episodes were not accounted for ('missing/incomplete data'). Thirty three percent of the patients underwent consultant review whilst 57% were reviewed by middle grade surgeons and 9% by SHO/ST2 doctors. Forty eight percent of the consultations were new referrals: 37% of these patients were added to the elective surgical waiting list. One hundred and sixty eight follow-up consultations occurred, which included cancer patients (6%), review patients (12%), patients attending for investigative results (13%) and benign post-operative follow-ups (22%). Forty six of the 69 (66%) post-operative follow-ups were deemed unnecessary as patients were being seen after benign procedures (hernia repair, anorectal surgery or laparoscopic cholecystectomy).

CONCLUSION

Over 50% attendances (21/41) for 'normal' results could have been avoided by the use of a directed informative letter. Outpatient clinics are an important resource whose usage must be optimised.

An analysis of an open access general practitioner bone densitometry service

General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly involved in the selective opportunistic case finding of osteoporosis and treatment of this condition. An open access bone densitometry service has existed for GPs in the Cardiff area since 1993. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this service, particularly with respect to the appropriateness of bone densitometry requests and the impact of the service on hospital outpatient referrals. Over a period of 12 months, 560 patients were referred to the open access service by 154 GPs. A total of 229 (41%) patients were given a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis. Four hundred and seventy-three (84%) referrals followed the clinical referral criteria. In 85% of cases, GPs claimed that they would have referred patients to the hospital outpatient department, if there were no open access bone densitometry service. The majority of the referrals were appropriate, and the service appears to have reduced GP referrals to the specialist clinic.

Efficiency of care at the primary-secondary interface: variations with GP fundholding

The aim of the study was to investigate the processes of referral for out-patients care and the interface with general practice, from the perspective of the patient, the patient's general practitioner and hospital specialist. The analyses reported here present variations with fundholding and non-fundholding general practice. The design was a questionnaire survey of out-patients, their hospital specialists and general practitioners, in six, randomly sampled district health authorities in the North Thames Region, with stratification by area. The measures included validated items and scales on process, quality and patient satisfaction with services. Fundholders were more likely to have technical equipment and services available within the practice. There were no differences between fundholders and non-fundholders and the number of out-patient attendances made by their patients, hospital out-patient waiting list times, patients' waiting times in hospital clinics, nor in patients' satisfaction with out-patients and other process indicators. Fundholding is currently being replaced with the proposed wider locality commissioning schemes, with GPs, health authorities and other purchasing bodies acting in partnership. Health authority commissioning will be required to reflect the preferences of GPs. Participants in these schemes will need to pay particular attention to the areas where research indicates that fundholding GPs made little difference to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of health care both in their own practices and at the primary-secondary care interface.

The process of outpatient referral and care: the experiences and views of patients, their general practitioners, and specialists

BACKGROUND

The primary care system in the United Kingdom, involving the general practitioner (GP) as gatekeeper to further services, has helped to keep health care costs down. Despite this, unexplained variation in referral rates and increasing health care costs have led to the search for methods of improving efficiency. There is relatively little recent descriptive data on the processes of care at the primary-secondary care interface. The study reported here provides information about this.

AIM

To analyse the patterns and process of care for the referral of outpatients, together with the views of patients, their GPs, and specialists.

METHOD

A questionnaire survey of outpatients, their hospital specialists, and GPs in randomly sampled district health authorities in the North Thames Region. The measures included items and scales measuring satisfaction and processes.

RESULTS

Almost all of the outpatients thought that their consultation with the specialist was 'necessary' and 'worthwhile'. Most of the GPs felt that they could not have given the study patients the care, treatment, and investigations they received in hospital, and most of the sampled patients' attendances were rated by the specialists as 'appropriate'. However, for just over one-fifth of new patients, the specialists reported that the GP could have done more tests and examinations prior to referring the study patient. Large proportions of GPs in this survey also reported having technical equipment in their practices, as well as direct access to a range of services and hospital-based facilities.

CONCLUSION

A large amount of work is carried out in general practice prior to the hospital referral of patients, and GPs have direct access to some technologies and services that can act to reduce the burden on hospitals. The discrepancy between GPs' and specialists, perceptions about the potential for further investigative work prior to patient referral merits further investigation.