Outcomes of second opinions in general internal medicine

Outcomes of General Internal Medicine Consultations for Diagnosis from Specialists in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

The data on the diagnostic contribution of general internal medicine (GIM) consultations for undiagnosed health problems from specialists are scarce. This study aims to explore the role of generalists as diagnostic medicine consultants in tertiary care settings.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study at a Japanese university hospital. GIM consultations for diagnosis from other departments on outpatients aged ≧ 20 years from January 2018 to December 2020 were included. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. The primary outcome was new diagnosis rates. The secondary outcomes were new diagnosis rates with clinical significance and clinical outcomes at 90 days from the index visit.

Results

A total of 328 patients were included. The top five consulting departments were orthopedics (17.0%), cardiovascular (10.3%), otorhinolaryngology (8.8%), neurology (8.8%), and gastroenterology (7.9%). GIM identified 456 chief complaints (CCs), and the top five were fever (10.9%), abnormal laboratory results (8.3%), fatigue (5.9%), and pain (7.4%) or numbness (4.6%) in the extremities. There were 139 (104/328 patients: 31.8%) specialty consultations from GIM, and the top five departments were rheumatology (21.1%), gastroenterology (19.2%), orthopedics (9.6%), psychiatry (9.6%), and neurology (9.6%). In total, 277 new diagnoses were established in 232 patients (70.7%), and 203 patients had new diagnoses with clinical significance (61.8%). Clinical outcomes at 90 days from the time of the index visit were resolution/improvement (60.7%), unchanged/worsened (22.3%), and unknown (17.0%).

Conclusion

Over 70% of GIM consultations from other departments established new diagnoses with favorable outcomes in >60% of the patients.

Training Internal Medicine Residents in Difficult Diagnosis: A Novel Diagnostic Second Opinion Clinic Experience

BACKGROUND

In primary care clinics, time constraints and lack of exposure to highly complex cases may limit the breadth and depth of learning for internal medicine residents. To address these issues, we piloted a novel experience for residents to evaluate patients with puzzling symptoms referred by another clinician.

OBJECTIVE

To increase internal medicine residents' exposure to patients with perplexing presentations and foster a team-based approach to solving diagnostically challenging cases.

METHODS

During the academic year 2020-2021, residents participating in their 2-week primary care "block" rotation were given protected time to evaluate 1-2 patients from the Stanford Consultative Medicine clinic, an internist-led diagnostic second opinion service, and present their patients at the case conference. We assessed the educational value of the program with resident surveys including 5-point Lickert scale and open-ended questions.

RESULTS

21 residents participated in the pilot with a survey response rate of 66.6% (14/21). Both the educational value and overall quality of the experience were rated as 4.8 out of 5 (SD 0.4, range 4-5; 1:"very poor"; 5:"excellent"). Residents learned about new diagnostic tools as well as how to approach complex presentations and diagnostic dilemmas. Residents valued the increased time devoted to patient care, the team-based approach to tackling difficult cases, and the intellectual challenge of these cases. Barriers to implementation include patient case volume, time, and faculty engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of diagnostically challenging cases in a structured format is a highly valuable experience that offers a framework to enhance outpatient training in internal medicine.

Redundant laboratory testing on referral from general practice to the outpatient clinic: a post-hoc analysis

Background

Inappropriately repeated laboratory testing is a commonly occurring problem. However, this has not been studied extensively in the outpatient clinic after referral by GPs.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate how often laboratory tests ordered by the GP were repeated on referral to the outpatient clinic, and how many of the normal test results remained normal on repetition.

Design & setting

This is a post-hoc analysis of a study on laboratory testing strategies in patients newly referred to the outpatient clinic between April 2015 and April 2017.

Method

All patients who had a referral letter including laboratory test results ordered by the GP were included. These results were compared with the laboratory test results ordered in the outpatient clinic.

Results

Data were available for 295 patients, 191 of which had post-visit testing done. In this group, 56% of tests ordered by the GP were repeated. Tests with abnormal results were repeated more frequently than tests with normal results (65% versus 53%; P<0.001). A longer test interval was associated with slightly smaller odds of tests being repeated (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 0.99; P = 0.003). Of the tests with normal test results that were repeated, 90% remained normal. This was independent of testing interval or testing strategy.

Conclusion

Laboratory tests ordered by the GP are commonly repeated on referral to the outpatient clinic. The number of test results remaining normal on repetition suggests a high level of redundancy in laboratory test repetition.

Diagnostic Effect of Consultation Referral from Gastroenterologists to Generalists in Patients with Undiagnosed Chronic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Study

This study aimed to investigate consultation outcomes from gastroenterologists to generalist physicians for the diagnostic workup of undiagnosed chronic abdominal pain. This was a single-center, retrospective, descriptive study. Patients were included who were ≥15 years old and consulted from the Department of Gastroenterology to the Department of Diagnostic Medicine, to establish a diagnosis for chronic abdominal pain, at the Dokkyo University Hospital from 1 April 2016 to 31 August 2020. We retrospectively reviewed the patients' medical charts and extracted data. A total of 12 cases were included. Eight patients (66.7%) were diagnosed with and treated for functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) at the Department of Gastroenterology; their lack of improvement under treatment for FGID was the reason for their referral to the Department of Diagnostic Medicine for further examination. After this consultation, new possible diagnoses were generated for eight patients (66.7%). Six of the eight patients (75.0%) were diagnosed with abdominal wall pain (anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome, n = 3; myofascial pain, n = 1; falciform pain, n = 1; and herpes zoster non-herpeticus; n = 1). Consultation referral from gastroenterologists to generalists could generate new possible diagnoses in approximately 70% of patients with undiagnosed chronic abdominal pain.

Predictive factors of diagnostic and therapeutic divergence in a nationwide cohort of patients seeking second medical opinion

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe the profile of patients who sought a second medical opinion (SMO) on their therapeutic or diagnostic strategy using nationwide data from a French physician network dedicated to SMOs.

METHODS

An observational cohort study was conducted and the study population consisted of patients residing in France or in the French overseas territories who submitted a request for an SMO through a dedicated platform between January 2016 and October 2020. Patient characteristics were compared between convergent and divergent SMOs. The divergent rate for all patients excluding those with mental diseases were described. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of a divergent SMO according to patient characteristics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In total, 1,552 adult patients over several French regions were included. The divergence rate was 32.3 % (n = 502 patients). Gynecological [Odds Ratio (OR) and 95 % CI: 5.176 (3.154 to 8.494)], urological [OR 4.246 (2.053 to 8.782)] and respiratory diseases [OR 3.639 (1.357 to 9.758)] had the highest probability of a divergent SMO. Complex cases were also associated with a significantly higher risk of a divergent opinion [OR 2.78 (2.16 to 3.59)]. Age, sex, region and profession were not found to be predictive of a divergent second opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should encourage new research on patient outcomes such as mortality and hospitalization rates after a SMO. When proven effective, SMO networks will have the potential to benefit from specific public funding or even play a key role in national healthcare quality improvement programs.