Effect of NHS reforms on general practitioners' referral patterns.

OBJECTIVE--To compare outpatient referral patterns in fundholding and non-fundholding practices before and after the implementation of the NHS reforms in April 1991. DESIGN--Prospective collection of data on general practitioners'' referrals to specialist outpatient clinics between June 1990 and March 1992 and detailed comparison of two time periods: October 1990 to March 1991 (phase 1) and October 1991 to March 1992 (phase 2). SETTING--10 fundholding practices and six non-fundholding practices in the Oxford region. SUBJECTS--Patients referred to consultant outpatient clinics. RESULTS--After implementation of the NHS reforms there was no change in the proportion of referrals from the two groups of practices which crossed district boundaries. Both groups of practices increased their referral rates in phase 2 of the study, the fundholders from 107.3 per 1000 patients per annum (95% confidence interval 106 to 109) to 111.4 (110 to 113) and the non-fundholders from 95.0 (93 to 97) to 112.0 (110 to 114). In phase 2 there was no difference in overall standardised referral rates between fundholders and non-fundholders. Just over 20% of referrals went to private clinics in phase 1. By phase 2 this proportion had reduced by 2.2% (1.0% to 3.4%) among the fundholders and by 2.7% (1.2% to 4.2%) among the non-fundholders. CONCLUSIONS--Referral patterns among fundholders and non-fundholders were strikingly similar after the implementation of the NHS reforms. There was no evidence that fundholding was encouraging a shift from specialist to general practice care or that budgetary pressures were affecting general practitioners'' referral behaviour.     

Specialist outreach clinics in general practice.

OBJECTIVES--To establish the extent and nature of specialist outreach clinics in primary care and to describe specialists'' and general practitioners'' views on outreach clinics. DESIGN--Telephone interviews with hospital managers. Postal questionnaire surveys of specialists and general practitioners. SETTING--50 hospitals in England and Wales. SUBJECTS--50 hospital managers, all of whom responded. 96 specialists and 88 general practitioners involved in outreach clinics in general practice, of whom 69 (72%) and 46 (52%) respectively completed questionnaires. 122 additional general practitioner fundholders, of whom 72 (59%) completed questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Number of specialist outreach clinics; organisation and referral mechanism; waiting times; perceived benefits and problems. RESULTS--28 of the hospitals had a total of 96 outreach clinics, and 32 fundholders identified a further 61 clinics. These clinics covered psychiatry (43), medical specialties (38), and surgical specialties (76). Patients were seen by the consultant in 96% (107) of clinics and general practitioners attended at only six clinics. 61 outreach clinics had shorter waiting times for first outpatient appointment than hospital clinics. The most commonly reported benefits for patients were ease of access and shorter waiting times. CONCLUSIONS--Specialist outreach clinics cover a wide range of specialties and are popular, especially in fundholding practices. These clinics do not seem to have increased the interaction between general practitioners and specialists.     

Improving care: a study of orthopaedic outpatient referrals.

OBJECTIVE--To identify aspects of outpatient referral in which general practitioners'', consultants'', and patients'' satisfaction could be improved. DESIGN--Questionnaire survey of general practitioners, consultant orthopaedic surgeons, and patients referred to an orthopaedic clinic. SETTING--Orthopaedic clinic, Doncaster Royal Infirmary. SUBJECTS--628 consecutive patients booked into the orthopaedic clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Views of the general practitioners as recorded both when the referral letter was received and again after the patient had been seen, views of the consultants as recorded at the time of the clinic attendance, and views of the patients as recorded immediately after the clinic visit and some time later. RESULTS--Consultants rated 213 of 449 referrals (42.7%) as possibly or definitely inappropriate, though 373 of 451 patients (82.7%) reported that they were helped by seeing the consultant. Targets for possible improvement included information to general practitioners about available services, communication between general practitioners and consultants, and administrative arrangements in clinics. Long waiting times were a problem, and it seemed that these might be reduced if general practitioners could provide more advice on non-surgical management. Some general practitioners stated that they would value easier telephone access to consultants for management advice. It was considered that an alternative source of management advice on musculoskeletal problems might enable more effective use to be made of specialist orthopaedic resources. Conclusion--A survey of patients'' and doctors'' views of referrals may be used to identify aspects in which the delivery of care could be made more efficient. Developing agreed referral guidelines might help general practitioners to make more effective use of hospital services.     

Open access to orthopaedic appliances for general practitioners.

A clinic to which general practitioners can refer patients for some types of orthopaedic appliances was opened in North Clwyd in 1983. During 1985, 956 patients were referred by 82 general practitioners; 860 patients received an appliance, and the average waiting time was less than five weeks. Most referrals were for soft collars (44%), lumbar sacral supports (30%), and dorsilumbar supports (7%). Thirty eight patients failed to attend, 54 declined an appliance, and four referrals were considered to be inappropriate. A few patients were subsequently referred to consultant outpatient clinics, 22 for physiotherapy and 34 were referred simultaneously to the open access clinic. The referral rates for general practitioners with access to community hospitals were low. Such an arrangement merits wider consideration.     

Effect of fundholding and indicative prescribing schemes on general practitioners' prescribing costs.

OBJECTIVE--To compare general practitioners'' prescribing costs in fundholding and non-fundholding practices before and after implementation of the NHS reforms in April 1991. DESIGN--Analysis of prescribing and cost information (PACT data; levels 2 and 3) over two six month periods in 1991 and 1992. SETTING--Oxford region. PARTICIPANTS--Three dispensing fundholding practices; five non-dispensing fundholding practices; and seven non-dispensing, non-fundholding practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Percentage change in net cost of ingredients, number of items prescribed, average cost per item, and proportion of generic drugs prescribed after NHS reforms. RESULTS--Prescribing costs increased in all practices in the six months after the reforms. The net costs of ingredients increased among dispensing fundholders by 10.2%, among non-dispensing fundholders by 13.2%, and among non-fundholders by 18.7%. The number of items prescribed also increased in all three groups (by 5.2%, 7.5%, and 6.1% respectively). The increase in average cost per item was 4.8% for dispensing fundholders, 5.3% for non-dispensing fundholders, and 11.9% for non-fundholders. Dispensing fundholders increased the proportion of generic drugs prescribed from 26.9% to 34.5% and non-dispensing fundholders from 44.5% to 48.7%; non-fundholders showed no change (47%). Five of the eight fundholding practices made savings in their drugs budgets at the end of the first year of fundholding (range 2.9-10.7%; the three other practices overspent by up to 3.6%). All non-fundholding practices exceeded their indicative prescribing amounts (range 3.2-20.0%). CONCLUSIONS--Fundholding has helped to curb increases in prescribing costs, even among dispensing general practitioners, for whom the incentives are different. Indicative prescribing amounts for non-fundholding practices do not seem to have had the same effect.     

General practitioners' referrals to specialist outpatient clinics. I. Why general practitioners refer patients to specialist outpatient clinics.

There has been much concern about the wide variations in general practitioners'' referral rates and the consequent implications for cost and quality of care. This has led to a call to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of referrals. A collaborative audit of referrals to outpatient clinics was conducted by 127 general practitioners in 33 practices in the Oxford region. Records were kept of 18,754 referrals, which included data on diagnoses and reasons for referral. Overall, 6553 (35.4%) of the referrals were for particular treatments or operations and a further 6475 (34.9%) were for specific investigation or diagnosis. Advice on management was the main reason for referral in 2656 (14.3%) cases, and in 1719 (9.3%) cases the general practitioners wanted the consultants to take over managing their patients. Reassurance of either the general practitioner or the patient was recorded as the main reason in only 762 (4.1%) referrals. There seems to be scope for rationalising the referral process. A programme with three stages for evaluating referrals to outpatient clinics is recommended.     

General practice orthopaedic outpatient referrals in North Staffordshire.

A study was made of 813 orthopaedic referrals by 134 general practitioners in North Staffordshire. The referral rates showed no relation to practice list size or the doctors'' previous orthopaedic experience. The published waiting times did not accurately reflect clinic vacancies, and no effective priority rating of letters by consultants was shown. Less than 1% of patients had an appointment within four weeks. One quarter of the patients failed to attend and, of those who did, 27% received physiotherapy or a "simple" appliance, or both, while 16% received treatment already available from their general practitioner. Patients from high referring doctors showed the same pattern of distribution in body area affected and treatment outcome as those from low referring doctors, but had a significantly longer time to wait for their appointment. A survey of non-attenders showed that 56% of the patients failed to attend because the condition had resolved.     

Fundholding: a two tier system?

The Calverton practice is one of 30 fundholding practices in Nottinghamshire. Three years after the inception of fundholding, it has achieved a lower outpatient waiting time for its specialist clinics than non-fundholding practices in the region. Its district nursing and health visiting services have been strengthened. Prescribing costs remain below the national average, and making further cost reductions has not been easy. The business plan has allowed the practice to work within a defined budget and develop expertise in the purchasing of services. Through the provision of specialist clinics and increased patient demand the workload of general practitioners has risen by 15% in the past year. But fundholding is still a minority activity in Nottinghamshire--a non-fundholders'' group has been set up to ensure that purchasing of good quality secondary care is equitably distributed among all patients, and this group is extremely active.     

Referrals to hospital by general practitioners: a study of compliance and communication.

To determine the extent of non-attendance at first hospital appointments 269 hospital referrals made in one practice over 14 weeks were analysed retrospectively. Non-attendance was more likely among patients referred to outpatient departments than to casualty or for admission. Fifteen per cent (41/269) of all patients and 20% (33/167) of outpatients failed to keep their initial appointments. Prolonged waiting times from referral to appointment were significantly related to non-attendance. Twenty weeks after the last referral had been made no communication had been received by the practice for 24% (61/252) of all referral letters received by the hospital. Minimum delays to appointments and improved communication between hospitals and general practitioners would help general practitioners to make appropriate referrals and improve compliance.     

Shortening waiting lists in orthopaedic surgery outpatient clinics.

There is a long waiting list for orthopaedic outpatient appointments in South Glamorgan Area Health Authority as elsewhere. A detailed study of that waiting list was undertaken to identify factors that might lead to its better management and reduction. One-third of patients on the list failed to attend when appointments were offered. A postal-questionnaire to all those listed as waiting confirmed that many no longer sought specialist orthopaedic consultation. Another third of the patients reported that they had been treated previously for the same orthopaedic problem. It is concluded that improved management of long outpatient waiting lists could be achieved by correspondence with referring general practitioners to weed out those patients who no longer wish to attend, to reduce the burden of reviews and re-referrals of patients with "chronic" conditions, and to request priorities fairly so that earlier appointments may be offered to truly "new" patients with treatable or with potentially serious conditions.     

Referral letters and replies from orthopaedic departments: opportunities missed.

OBJECTIVE--To study delays between sending referral letters and the outpatient appointment and to assess the content of referral and reply letters, their educational value, and the extent to which questions asked are answered by reply letters. DESIGN--Retrospective review of referrals to 16 consultant orthopaedic surgeons at five hospitals, comprising 288 referral letters with corresponding replies, by scoring contents of letters. SETTING--Orthopaedic teaching hospitals in Nottingham, Derby, and Mansfield. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Weighted scores of contents of referral and reply letters, assessment of their educational value, and responses to questions in referral letters. RESULTS--Median outpatient delay was 23.4 weeks. There was no significant decrease in waiting time if the referral letter was marked "urgent" but a significantly greater delay (p less than 0.01) if referrals were directed to an unnamed consultant. The content score was generally unsatisfactory for both referrals and replies, and there was no correlation for the content scores of the referral letter and its reply (r = 0.13). Items of education were rare in the referral letters (8/288; 3%) and significantly more common in replies (75/288; 26%) (p much less than 0.001). Senior registrars were significantly more likely to attempt education than other writers (p less than 0.02). Education in replies was significantly related to increased length of the letter (p less than 0.05) and was more likely to occur if the referral was addressed to a named consultant (p less than 0.03). 48 (17%) Referral letters asked questions, of which 21 (44%) received a reply. No factor was found to influence the asking of or replying to questions. CONCLUSIONS--The potential for useful communication in the referral letter and in the reply from orthopaedic surgeons is being missed at a number of levels. The content is often poor, the level of mutual education is low, and the use of the referral letter to determine urgency is deficient. Most questions asked by general practitioners are not answered.     

Are combined orthopaedic and rheumatology clinics worth while?

The practice of holding combined orthopaedic and rheumatology clinics is widespread, but no attempt has been made to assess their usefulness. In a one year prospective study patients were randomised either to a combined clinic with a rheumatologist and an orthopaedic surgeon or to a clinic with an orthopaedic surgeon alone. The details of the patients'' disease, the interview, the surgeons'' and rheumatologists'' responses, and the patients'' opinions were recorded on questionnaires. Interviews were appreciably longer in the combined clinic, and more referrals for surgery were made. The rheumatologist correctly predicted the need for surgery in 95% of cases, and his presence in the clinic was considered desirable by the surgeon, principally when the referral letter was inadequate. It is concluded that most patients with rheumatic diseases can be seen more efficiently in routine orthopaedic clinics provided a good quality letter of referral is sent.     

Distribution of NHS funds between fundholding and non-fundholding practices.

OBJECTIVES--To estimate the amount spent on specific hospital care by health agencies in 1993-4 and compare it with the resources allocated to patients registered with fundholding practices for the same type of care. To investigate whether fundholding practices and health agencies pay different amounts for inpatient care. DESIGN--Examination of hospital episode statistics, 1991 census data, and family health services authority and health agency records. SETTING--Health agencies and fundholding practices in the former North West Thames Regional Health Authority. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Amount per capita allocated to inpatient and outpatient care for patients registered with fundholding and non-fundholding practices. Average specialty cost per finished consultant episode for health agencies and fundholding practices. RESULTS--The ratio of per capita funding for patients in non-fundholding practices to those in fundholding practices ranged from 59% to 87% for inpatient and day case care and from 36% to 106% for outpatient care. Average specialty costs per episode were similar for fundholding practices and health agencies. CONCLUSIONS--Fundholding practices seem to have been funded more generously than non-fundholding practices in North West Thames.     

General practitioner fundholding: experience in Grampian.

Proposals for fundholding were greeted with scepticism by many general practitioners, and in Scotland the BMA persuaded the government to allow a scheme to test the arrangements as a demonstration project operating "shadow" practice funds. This allowed the six selected practices to set up administrative and computer systems without the worry of dealing with real money. The shadow fundholding scheme has since been extended to small practices and to a trial of fundholding for all services except accident and emergency. The six practices in the original pilot have all become fundholders and are beginning to effect improvements in the service to their patients. However, with more practices becoming fundholders negotiating contracts with providers is becoming increasingly complicated and more time and money needs to be put into this aspect.     

Waiting list management in general practice: a review of orthopaedic patients.

OBJECTIVE: To review all patients on a current general practice orthopaedic waiting list for outpatient appointments with regard to accuracy of the list, clinical priority, and need for further radiological investigation before hospital attendance. DESIGN: Record review by one general practitioner and a radiologist, and discussion with patients of management alternatives. SETTING: Six partner city centre urban fund-holding general practice, list size 8651 (29% low deprivation payment status). SUBJECTS: 116 adults on an orthopaedic waiting list. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: List accuracy (patient details and status on waiting list); clinical priority (severity of condition); further investigations (results of tests after radiological review). RESULTS: 32 patients (28%) were removed from the waiting list because of inaccuracies. 14 patients were considered to be high priority and referred to other hospitals by utilising waiting list initiative funds. Of these patients, five agreed to referral to another hospital (treatment completed on average within three months of rereferral), six did not wish to be rereferred, and two did not attend to discuss the offer and remained on the original waiting list. One prioritised patient had further radiological investigations, was reassured, and was taken off the waiting list. 10 patients had further investigations. These resulted in six patients being referred to other hospitals, three being taken off the waiting list, and one seeking private care. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review of patients on an orthopaedic waiting list of one general practice, though time consuming, led to the identification of inaccuracies in the list and changes in management. Costs need further evaluation, but if the findings occur widely substantial benefits could be achieved for patients.     

Community care and the fundholder.

According to the government, clearly agreed local arrangements should enable individual general practitioners to make their full contribution to the new system of community care without getting involved in extra bureaucracy. From 1 April the main part of that contribution will be to refer to social services those patients who seem to need social care. Many general practitioners are worried that such referrals will be complex and time consuming and will generate too much extra work. Moreover, general practitioners may also be asked to see patients specifically to help social workers'' assessment procedures, and many fear that such consultations will overwork and underpay them. General practitioner fundholders already use contracts to spell out what they expect from hospital services. From 1 April they will be able to set up contracts for community health services such as district nursing and chiropody, and possibly this might be extended to social aspects of community care. Over the past 14 months Dr Rhidian Morris and his partners in a fundholding practice in Devon have piloted contracts for all aspects of community care. In this article Dr Morris explains how the most radical part of the pilot project--the contract for social care--was set up. He argues that the lessons on communication that came from what was essentially a fundholding project could apply also to non-fundholding practices.     

Relation between general practices' outpatient referral rates and rates of elective admission to hospital.

OBJECTIVE--To examine the variation in rates of admission to hospital among general practices, to determine the relation between referral rates and admission rates, and to assess the extent to which variations in outpatient referral rates might account for the different patterns of admission. DESIGN--A comparison of outpatient referral rates standardised for age and sex and rates of elective admission to hospital for six specialties individually and for all specialties combined. SETTING--19 General practices in three districts in Oxford Regional Health Authority with a combined practice population of 188 610. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Estimated proportion of outpatient referrals resulting in admission to hospital, extent of variation in referral rates and admission rates among practices, and association between admissions and outpatient referrals. RESULTS--Patients referred to surgical specialties were more likely than those referred to medical specialties to be admitted after an outpatient referral. Overall, the estimated proportion of patients admitted after an outpatient referral was 42%. There were significant differences among the practices in referral rates and admission rates for most of the major specialties. The extent of systematic variance in admission rates (0.048) was similar to that in referral rates (0.037). Referral and admission rates were significantly associated for general surgery; ear, nose, and throat surgery; trauma and orthopaedics; and all specialties combined. For most specialties the practices with higher referral rates also had higher admission rates, casting doubt on the view that these practices were referring more patients unnecessarily. CONCLUSION--Rates of elective admission to hospital vary systematically among general practices. Variations in outpatient referral rates are an important determinant of variations in admission rates.     

Making the internal market work: a case for managed change.

The internal market in the NHS is meant to ensure that provider units compete on the basis of price and quality and that money follows patients into efficient units. But the example of what happened to one local ophthalmology unit suggests what may go wrong when entrepreneurial activity is applied in a market that does not work perfectly. In 1991-2 the unit had a high workload but also comparatively high prices (because of crude pricing in the local hospital); because of pressure of work the waiting times lengthened and general practitioners increasingly complained about the service. The staff in the unit reopened a longstanding debate about the need for a third consultant ophthalmologist, but neither the purchasers (including fundholders) nor the provider unit were able to fund the post. Fundholders in a neighbouring district, however, together with that district health authority, decided to place their contracts elsewhere for the following year. Although the withdrawal of contracts jeopardised the clinical and financial viability of the ophthalmic unit, patients continued to use the service. When general practitioners in the district realised that their local service might collapse they pressed to keep the service open. The fundholders and the host purchaser finally agreed to fund a third consultant and drew up standards for the service. As a result the waiting times fell and the service is now described as "excellent." Short term market decisions may have unforseen long term implications for services to patients. This needs to be addressed as part of the evolution of the reformed NHS.