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.     

Death certification and epidemiological research. Medical Services Study Group of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

The cause of death shown on 191 death certificates was compared with the cause indicated by the hospital case notes, the consultants'' opinions, and the necropsy findings. All 191 deaths occurred among medical hospital patients aged under 50. In 39 cases there was a major discrepancy between the two sources over the cause of death and in another 54 ther was a minor but epidemiologically important difference. Death certificates are not primarily intended for epidemiological research, but researchers often rely on them. This and other studies have shown, however, that death certificates are often inaccurate records of the cause of death--even coroner''s certificates issued after a coroner''s necropsy. The accuracy of death certificates might be improved if coroners consulted clinicians more closely and if senior hospital staff completed hospital death certificates.     

Communication between general practitioners and consultants: what should their letters contain?

OBJECTIVE--To canvass the views of all general practitioners and consultants working in Newcastle upon Tyne on the content of referral letters and replies, the feasibility of standardising certain aspects of referral letters, and the use of communications data for audit purposes. DESIGN--A postal questionnaire was sent to all general practitioners and consultants in Newcastle upon Tyne in May 1991. Questions were asked about the clinical and administrative content of letters, the utility of standard categories to state the reason for referral, the idea of using letters for feedback purposes, and communications as a potential topic for professionally led audit. SETTING--Area served by Newcastle upon Tyne Family Health Services Authority and District Health Authority. RESULTS--Replies were received from 274 (77%) doctors (115 general practitioners and 159 consultants). A majority (225; 82%) were in favour of items defined as "always important" forming a minimum requirement for referral letters and for consultants'' replies. Using standardised categories to state the reason for referral was not endorsed: 102 (89%) general practitioners and 132 (83%) consultants preferred referrers to use their own words. Using referral communications to provide feedback was less popular with consultants (54; 34%) than general practitioners (72; 63%). Finally, a majority of doctors (179; 65%) were in favour of using written communications as a topic for professionally led audit. CONCLUSIONS--A high degree of consensus exists among clinicians about the content of referral communications. Although doctors may still reject the concept of standardised communications, they have unambiguously endorsed a standard for communication that they can aspire to, and they are prepared to use it as a yardstick for their actual performance.     

The consultant's role in continuing medical education of general practitioners: the case of rheumatology.

Consultant rheumatologists were surveyed by questionnaire about their contribution to the continuing education of general practitioners, and 84% (203/243) replied. Altogether 157 respondents had participated in some form of teaching, 147 in collective teaching sessions such as lectures and 99 in the teaching of small groups. Arthritis comprised 44% of the rheumatological topics taught; there was a noticeable lack of teaching on problems commonly encountered in general practice, such as soft tissue rheumatism and injury and back pain, and on clinical skills including examination and injection of joints. Eighty eight respondents made comments and suggestions. The favoured educational strategies were small group teaching, apprenticeship schemes, and interchange between general practitioners and consultants about shared cases. This contrasts with what was typically done--namely, formal lectures on rheumatoid arthritis in postgraduate medical centres. These findings raise questions about the continuing education of consultants themselves as well as about the consultants'' role in teaching others.     

Physicians' perceptions of the effect on clinical services of an alternative funding plan at an academic health sciences centre

BACKGROUND: In July 1994 an alternative funding plan for clinical services (global funding instead of fee-for-service payment) was established at the Southeastern Ontario Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. This study describes the perceptions of the referring physicians and consultants of the effects of the alternative funding plan 2.5 years after it was initiated. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all physicians in the Kingston area in November 1996. Information was collected on demographics, referring physicians'' perceptions of the funding plan''s impact on their practices, consultants'' perceptions of its impact on their activities, perceptions of referring and consultant physicians of its impact on services provided by consultants, and attitudes toward alternative funding in the context of the Ontario health care system. RESULTS: Of the 772 physicians 531 (68.8%) returned a completed questionnaire (323 referring physicians and 208 consultants). A sizeable proportion of the referring physicians (126 [39.0%]) indicated that they were referring fewer patients to consultants at the study centre. They did not think that their practice volume had increased, but they did report spending more time on complex cases and on patient care after referral or hospital stay, and more time coordinating community care after hospital stay. Of the consultants 81 (38.9%) believed that their time spent on patient care had increased. No consistent impact on time spent on research or teaching activities was perceived. A total of 54 (26.0%) of the consultants were concerned about the impact of the alternative funding plan on quality of care. A significant proportion of the respondents (399 [75.1%]) believed that outpatient waiting times had increased, and 116 (35.9%) of the referring physicians believed that consultants were not as available by telephone. Most (220 [68.1%]) of the referring physicians believed that the funding change had had a negative effect on health care services in the region, and 87 (41.8%) of the consultants agreed. Nevertheless, the respondents believed that other factors such as funding cuts, hospital bed closures and staff layoffs were much more responsible than the alternative funding plan for their negative perceptions. INTERPRETATION: The alternative funding plan appears to have had an impact on the practices of individual physicians. However, it was not the focus for significant opposition or support from either consultants participating in the funding plan or referring physicians.     

Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners

ObjectiveTo explore consultants'' and general practitioners'' perceptions of the factors that influence their decisions to introduce new drugs into their clinical practice.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews. Monitoring of hospital and general practice prescribing data for eight new drugs.SettingTeaching hospital and nearby general hospital plus general practices in Birmingham.Participants38 consultants and 56 general practitioners who regularly referred to the teaching hospital.ResultsConsultants usually prescribed new drugs only in their specialty, used few new drugs, and used scientific evidence to inform their decisions. General practitioners generally prescribed more new drugs and for a wider range of conditions, but their approach varied considerably both between general practitioners and between drugs for the same general practitioner. Drug company representatives were an important source of information for general practitioners. Prescribing data were consistent with statements made by respondents.ConclusionsThe factors influencing the introduction of new drugs, particularly in primary care, are more multiple and complex than suggested by early theories of drug innovation. Early experience of using a new drug seems to strongly influence future use.

What is already known on this topic

UK studies show that use of new drugs by general practitioners is influenced by consultants, the nature of the drug, and perceived risk

What this study adds

Consultants generally introduced fewer drugs than general practitioners, usually within their specialtyDecisions were said to be based mainly on the evidence from the scientific literature and meetingsGeneral practitioners prescribed more new drugs and the basis of decisions was more variedDoctors'' interpretations of using a new drug were not consistent     

Consultant Surgeons and Vasectomy

In late 1971 410 consultant general surgeons and urologists—74% of a national random sample—responded to a postal survey about vasectomy. Probably about 50,000 vasectomies were performed by surgeons in England and Wales in 1970. The service was largely a private one: 60% of consultants'' hospital vasectomies were not done under the National Health Service, and, in addition, 26% of the consultants who worked in relevant specialties performed vasectomies elsewhere than in hospital (usually in private nursing homes). Based again on consultants'' estimates, probably 6,000 men in 1970 had their requests for vasectomy turned down by surgeons, or more than one turned down for every 10 done. The most common reason was that patients were “too young.”About 90% of the consultants thought vasectomy could normally be performed safely and adequately as an outpatient procedure, yet only 64% said that 90% or more of their hospital vasectomies were done on this basis. While 69% regarded services in their areas as adequate, most were in favour of more special vasectomy clinics.     

Prescribing at the hospital-general practice interface. II: Impact of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England on general practitioners and hospital consultants.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the impact on general practitioners and hospital consultants of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire and telephone interview survey of general practitioners and hospital consultants in January 1991. SETTING--94 selected major acute hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS--20 general practitioners in the vicinity of each of 94 selected hospitals and eight consultants from each, selected by chief pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proportions of general practitioners unable to assume responsibility for specialist drugs and of consultants wishing to retain responsibility; association between dispensing restrictions and the frequency of general practitioners being asked to prescribe hospital initiated treatments. RESULTS--Completed questionnaires were obtained from 1207 (64%) of 1887 general practitioners and 457 (63%) of 729 consultants. 570 (46%) general practitioners felt unable to take responsibility for certain treatments, principally because of difficulty in detecting side effects (367, 30%), uncertainty about explaining treatment to patients (332, 28%), and difficulty monitoring dosage (294, 24%). Among consultants 328 (72%) wished to retain responsibility, principally because of specialist need for monitoring (93, 20%), urgent need to commence treatment (64, 14%), and specialist need to initiate or stabilise treatment (63, 14%). The more restricted the drug supply to outpatients, the more frequently consultants asked general practitioners to prescribe (p less than 0.01) and complete a short course of treatment initiated by the hospital (p less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS--Restrictive hospital outpatient dispensing shifts clinical responsibility on to general practitioners. Hospital doctors should be able to retain responsibility for prescribing when the general practitioner is unfamiliar with the drug or there is a specialist need to initiate, stabilise, or monitor treatment.     

Cost of achieving a balance in the anaesthetic department of a district general hospital.

In Achieving a Balance the Department of Health published requirements for medical staffing in hospitals. To review the effect that these would be likely to have a study was undertaken in the anaesthetic department of a district general hospital. The results were then validated with staffing levels in a new district general hospital with only one tier of junior staff. It was found that over the next 10 years a massive expansion in the numbers of consultants would be needed at a cost of 108,000 pounds in salaries and employer''s contributions alone.     

Contribution of general practitioner hospitals in England and Wales.

A survey of a one-in-seven sample of general practitioner hospitals in England and Wales, performed to determine the contribution they make to overall hospital work load and the attitudes of the general practitioners working in them, showed that 3% of acute hospital beds in England and Wales were in general practitioner hospitals, which provided initial hospital care for up to 20% of the population. Altogether 16% of general practitioners and 22% of consultants were on the staffs, and they coped with more than 13% of all casualties, 6% of operations, and 4% of x-ray examinations. Nearly a million casualties were treated at no cost to the National Health Service. Twenty new district general hospitals would be needed to cope with the work load currently dealt with by general practitioner hospitals. The results of this survey indicate that these smaller hospitals deal efficiently and cheaply with their work load, and that morale is high. General practitioner hospitals could have an important part to play in providing certain types of care, but there are no financial incentives to enable general practitioners to realise this potential fully.     

What do hospital consultants value about their jobs? A discrete choice experiment

Objective To examine the strength of hospital consultants'' preferences for various aspects of their work.Design Questionnaire survey including a discrete choice experiment.Setting NHS Scotland.Participants 2923 hospital consultants in Scotland.Main outcome measures Monetary valuations or prices for each job characteristic, based on consultants'' willingness to pay and willingness to accept extra income for a change in each job characteristic, calculated from regression coefficients.Results The response rate was 61% (1793 resspondents). Being on call was the most important attribute, as consultants would need to be compensated up to £18 000 (30% of their average net income) (P < 0.001) for a high on-call workload. Compensation of up to £9700 (16% of their net income) (P < 0.001) would be required for consultants to forgo opportunities to undertake non-NHS work. Consultants would be willing to accept £7000 (12% of net income) (P < 0.001) in compensation for fair rather than good working relationships with staff, and £6500 (11% of net income) (P < 0.001) to compensate them for a shortage of staff. The least important characteristic was hours of work, with £562 per year (0.9% of their net income) (P < 0.001) required to induce consultants to work one extra hour per week. These preferences also varied among specific subgroups of consultants.Conclusions Important information on consultants'' strength of preferences for characteristics of their job should be used to help to address recruitment and retention problems. Consultants would require increased payment to cover more intensive on-call commitments. Other aspects of working conditions would require smaller increases.     

Comparative Study of District and Community Hospitals

Opinions conflict on whether there is a place in the Health Service for general practitioner (community) hospitals in which the patients'' treatment is mainly the responsibility of their family doctors. The authors therefore analysed a sample of the patients admitted in the course of a year to a group of two general district hospitals with a comparable sample of the patients admitted to a general practitioner hospital. The aim was to analyse the type of care provided in the general practitioner hospital, to assess whether it was appropriate for the type of cases treated, and to decide whether the patients would have been better off in the district general hospital (and vice versa). The main conclusions are that a district hospital is best for serious illnesses needing skilled decisions and assessments but that most of the work of these hospitals is not of this kind and a community hospital staffed by general practitioners offers many advantages to patients—provided the work being done is constantly under critical assessment. The authors plead for special refresher courses under the N.H.S. for general practitioners working in community hospitals.     

Palliative care: views of patients and their families.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate the current problems and needs of terminally ill cancer patients and their family members, and to discover their views of hospital, community, and support team services. DESIGN--Prospective study of patients and families by questionnaire interviews in the patients'' homes. SETTING--Inner London and north Kent (London suburbs). SUBJECTS--65 Patients, each with a member of their family or a career. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Ratings of eight current problems and ratings and comments on three services-hospital doctors and nurses, general practitioners and district nurses, and the support team staff-obtained after a minimum of two weeks'' care from palliative care support teams. RESULTS--Effect of anxiety on the patient''s nearest career. and symptom control were rated as the most severe current problems by both patients and families; a few patients and families identified other severe problems. Families'' ratings of pain control, symptom control, and effect of anxiety on the patient were significantly worse than the patients'' ratings (p less than 0.05). Support teams received the most praise, being rated by 58 (89%) patients and 59 (91%) of family members as good as excellent. General practitioners and district nurses were rated good or excellent by 46 (71%) patients and 46 (71%) family members, but six (9%) in each group rated the service as poor or very bad, and ratings in the inner London district were significantly worse than those in the outer London district. Hospital doctors and nurses were rated good or excellent by 22 (34%) patients and 35 (54%) of family members, and 14 (22%) patients and 15 (23%) family members rated this service as poor or very bad. Negative comments referred to communication (especially at diagnosis), coordination of services, the attitude of the doctor, delays in diagnosis, and difficulties in getting doctors to visit at home. Family members were more satisfied with the services than were patients. CONCLUSIONS--Palliative care needs to include both the patient and family because the needs of the family may exceed those of the patient. Support teams and some hospital and community doctors and nurses met the perceived needs of dying patients and families, but better education and organisation of services are needed.     

When do pregnant women attend for antenatal care?

The case records of a representative sample of 313 women from four health districts in the North-east Thames Health Region were reviewed to determine the stage of pregnancy at which they contact antenatal services. Patients seeking care (when a blood specimen was obtained) after 20 weeks'' gestation ranged from 6% to 26%. These women were more likely to be of higher parity and immigrants. Appreciable delays in obtaining an early blood specimen, or in referral to a hospital antenatal clinic, were due to delay by hospitals in giving appointments and, to a lesser extent, to slowness of general practitioners in referring patients or taking blood.     

Electronic communication between providers of primary and secondary care.

OBJECTIVE--To study the effects of the introduction of electronic data interchange between primary and secondary care providers on speed of communication, efficiency of data handling, and satisfaction of general practitioners with communication. DESIGN--Comparison of traditional paper based communication for laboratory reports and admission-discharge reports between hospital and general practitioners and electronic data interchange. SETTING--Twenty-seven general practitioners whose offices were equipped with a practice information system and two general hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES--Paper based communication was evaluated by questionnaire responses from and interviews with care providers; electronic communication was evaluated by measuring time intervals between generation and delivery of messages and by assessing doctors'' satisfaction with electronic data interchange by questionnaire. RESULTS--Via paper mail admission-discharge reports took a median of 2-4 days, and laboratory reports 2 days, to reach general practitioners. With electronic data interchange almost all admission-discharge reports were available to general practitioners within one hour of generation. When samples were analysed on the day of collection (as was the case for 174/542 samples in one hospital and 443/854 in the other) the laboratory reports were also available to the general practitioner the same day via electronic data interchange. Fifteen general practitioners (of the 24 who returned the questionnaire) reported that the use of electronic admission-discharge reports provided more accurate and complete information about the care delivered to their patients. Ten general practitioners reported that electronic laboratory reports lessened the work of processing the data. CONCLUSION--Electronic communication between primary and secondary care providers is a feasible option for improving communication.     

Stress,anxiety, and depression in hospital consultants,general practitioners,and senior health service managers.

OBJECTIVE--To study stress, anxiety, and depression in a group of senior health service staff. DESIGN--Postal survey. SUBJECTS--81 hospital consultants, 322 general practitioners, and 121 senior hospital managers (total 524). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Scores on the general health questionnaire and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. RESULTS--Sixty five (80%) consultants, 257 (80%) general practitioners, and 67 (56%) managers replied. Of all 389 subjects, 183 (47%) scored positively on the general health questionnaire, indicating high levels of stress. From scores on the hospital anxiety and depression scale only 178 (46%) would be regarded as free from anxiety, with 100 (25%) scoring as borderline cases and 111 (29%) likely to be experiencing clinically measurable symptoms. The findings for depression were also of some concern, especially for general practitioners, with 69 (27%) scoring as borderline or likely to be depressed. General practitioners were more likely to be depressed than managers (69 (27%) v 4 (6%) scored > or = 8 on hospital anxiety and depression scale-D; P = 0.004) with no significant difference between general practitioners and consultants. General practitioners were significantly more likely to show suicidal thinking than were consultants (36 (14%) v 3 (5%); P = 0.04) but not managers (9 (13%)). No significant difference could be found between the three groups on any other measure. CONCLUSIONS--The levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in senior doctors and managers in the NHS seem to be high and perhaps higher than expected.     

Alternatives to hospital care: what are they and who should decide?

OBJECTIVE--To examine potential for alternatives to care in hospitals for acute admissions, and to compare the decisions about these alternatives made by clinicians with different backgrounds. DESIGN--Standardised tool was used to identify patients who could potentially be treated in an alternative form of care. Information about such patients was assessed by three panels of clinicians: general practitioners without experience of general practitioner beds, general practitioners with experience of general practitioner beds, and consultants. SETTING--One hospital for acute admissions in a rural area of the South and West region of England. SUBJECTS--Of 620 patients admitted to specialties of general medicine and care of the elderly, details of 112 were assessed by panels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proportion of hospitalised patients who could have received alternative care and identification of most appropriate alternative form of care. RESULTS--Both general practitioner panels estimated that between 51 and 89 of the hospitalised patients could have received alternative care (equivalent to 8-14% of all admissions). Consultants estimated that between 25 and 55 patients could have had alternative care (5.5-9% of all admissions). General practitioner bed and urgent outpatient appointment were the main alternatives chosen by all three panels. CONCLUSION--About 10% of admissions to general hospital might be suitable for alternative forms of care. Doctors with different backgrounds made similar overall assessments of most appropriate forms of care.     

Making the new deal for junior doctors happen.

How can the new deal for juniors be implemented in today''s overstretched health service? How do you get clinicians and management to work together? On the Wirral falling house officer morale and recruitment stimulated a new approach, action learning, which proved to be highly successful. Action learning is not a new approach in management terms, but it is rarely used in the health service. Guided by an experienced facilitator, a group of people learn management skills by exploring and resolving practical problems relevant to them. A group of general practitioners and consultants used action learning to teach themselves more about management and at the same time to make changes which addressed many of the junior doctors'' difficulties and solved the hospital recruiting problem.