An evaluation of home visiting of patients by physicians in geriatric medicine

The practice of preadmission home visiting of patients referred to geriatric medicine units has in recent years been criticised as being unnecessary on the grounds that if there is no waiting list there is no need for allocation of priority for admission; as being wasteful of doctors'' time; as being resented by general practitioners; and as failing to provide adequate clinical information. The geriatric medicine department at the City Hospital with no waiting list for patients referred by general practitioners has retained home visits for most referrals because of the advantages in terms of acceptability to general practitioners (98-100%); the quantity and quality of information obtained; the usefulness of this information in deciding appropriate management and in planning discharge from hospital; and the provision of a unique teaching opportunity, which is highly valued by students and teachers alike.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Waiting times: monitoring the total postreferral wait.

OBJECTIVES--To determine whether the period spent on the true inpatient waiting list is a valid indication of the total time that patients have to wait for an operation; and to assess the feasibility of monitoring the total "postreferral waiting time" by using existing computerised information systems. SETTING--Three randomly selected Scottish hospitals. SUBJECTS--Waiting list patients admitted to hospital for operations during June to August 1993 in six major specialties, separate attention being focused on cataract operations and hip and knee replacements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--The total time that patients have to wait for an operation after the initial general practitioner referral--the postreferral waiting time--compared with that spent at the final stage of the process on the true inpatient waiting list. RESULTS--In the specialties investigated roughly half (58 days; 53%) of the average postreferral wait of 110 days was spent on the true inpatient waiting list, one third (35 days; 32%) being spent on the outpatient waiting list and one sixth (17 days; 15%) waiting between waiting lists. Only a quarter of cataract patients (73/292) were treated within three months of general practitioner referral compared with over three quarters (228/292) within three months of being placed on the inpatient waiting list. Nevertheless, within a year over 99% of patients (290) had been treated whichever date was taken as the starting point. CONCLUSIONS--Monitoring postreferral waiting times would provide a much more accurate picture for purchasers and patients of waiting times for treatment than is obtained by focusing exclusively on the true inpatient waiting list and facilitate fairer comparisons between NHS trusts in national league tables. Stringent national and local monitoring is essential to ensure (a) that future reductions in the time waiting on true inpatient waiting lists are not gained at the expense of longer periods waiting to be placed on the lists, and (b) that no increases occur in the number of patients placed instead on deferred waiting lists or exempted from the normal maximum waiting time guarantees.     

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.     

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Newfoundland and Labrador

BACKGROUND: Newfoundland and Labrador, like other health care jurisdictions, is faced with widening gaps between the demands for health care and a strained ability to supply the necessary resources. The authors carried out a study to determine the rates of appropriate and inappropriate coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the province and the waiting times for this surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed in the tertiary care hospital that receives all referrals for coronary angiography and coronary artery revascularization for Newfoundland and Labrador. By reviewing the hospital records, the authors identified 2 groups of patients: those in whom critical coronary artery disease was diagnosed on the basis of coronary angiography and who were referred for CABG between Apr. 1, 1994, and Mar. 31, 1995, and those who actually underwent the procedure during that period. By applying specific criteria developed by the RAND Corporation, the authors determined the appropriateness and necessity of CABG in each case. They also compared waiting times for CABG with optimal waiting times; as determined by a consensus-based priority score. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients underwent CABG during the study period. The cases were characterized by multivessel disease and late-stage angina symptoms. Almost all of the patients had high appropriateness scores (7-9), and nearly 95% had high necessity scores (7-9). However, during the study period, the waiting list increased by about 20%, because a total of 391 patients were referred by the weekly cardiovascular surgery conference; the authors identified these and an additional 31 patients as having necessity scores of 7 or more. Only 7 (23%) of 31 patients for whom CABG was considered very urgent underwent surgery within the recommended 24 hours, and only 30 (24%) of the 122 patients for whom CABG was considered urgent underwent surgery within the recommended 72 hours. INTERPRETATION: These results provide evidence that the cardiac surgery program in Newfoundland and Labrador is performing CABG in patients for whom surgical revascularization is highly appropriate and necessary. Access to CABG is less than ideal, however, since the waiting list continues to expand, and many patients wait beyond the recommended time for surgery.     

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.     

TRADING WITH THE WAITING‐LIST: THE JUSTICE OF LIVING DONOR LIST EXCHANGE

In a Living Donor List Exchange program, the donor makes his kidney available for allocation to patients on the postmortal waiting‐list and receives in exchange a postmortal kidney, usually an O‐kidney, to be given to the recipient he favours. The program can be a solution for a candidate donor who is unable to donate directly or to participate in a paired kidney exchange because of blood group incompatibility or a positive cross‐match. Each donation within an LDLE program makes an additional organ available for transplantation. But because most of the pairs making use of the program will be A/O incompatible, it will also tend to increase the waiting time for patients with blood group O, who already have the longest waiting time. It has therefore been objected that the program is materially unjust, because it further disadvantages the least advantaged. This objection appeals to John Rawls’ difference principle. However, the context for which Rawls proposed that difference principle, is significantly different from the present one. Applying the principle here amounts to a lop‐sided trade‐off between considerations of need and considerations of overall utility. Considerations of formal justice, however, may lead to a stronger objection to LDLE programs. Such a program means that one O‐patient on the waiting list is exempted from the application of the general criteria used in constructing the list because he has a special bargaining advantage. This objection is spelled out and weighed against the obvious attraction of LDLE in a situation of (extreme) organ scarcity.     

Long distance travel for routine elective surgery: questionnaire survey of patients' attitudes.

OBJECTIVE--To carry out an audit and assess the acceptability of long distance travel to patients on a lengthy surgical waiting list. DESIGN--Audit and questionnaire survey. SETTING--Military hospital in Wiltshire. PATIENTS--116 Patients on a general surgical waiting list at Leighton Hospital near Crewe. INTERVENTIONS--Preselection for medical fitness at a waiting list review clinic. RESULTS--Roughly half of patients offered the facility of travelling 120 miles (190 km) for their routine elective operation at the health authority''s expense accepted. The average waiting list time declared by the patients who travelled was 28 months, and 13 patients stated that their condition prevented them from working. Only four patients regretted their decision to participate in the scheme. Lack of visitors did not cause undue concern. CONCLUSIONS--Some patients did not agree to travel for their operation but almost all of those who did so found the scheme satisfactory. Some minor problems were encountered but these could probably be overcome by ensuring use of appropriate transport, extending the postoperative stay when necessary, and more careful selection of patients for an anaesthetic. For efficient use of theatre time in such schemes it is crucial that the operating consultant surgeon should be in charge of case selection.     

Waiting for coronary revascularization in Toronto: 2 years' experience with a regional referral office.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of major adverse events among patients awaiting coronary revascularization; to assess the match between referring physicians'' estimates of urgency, a computer-generated multifactorial urgency rating score and actual waiting times; to determine the changes in waiting times as capacity for bypass surgery increased; and to evaluate the influence of choice of procedure or operator on waiting times. DESIGN: Consecutive case series. SETTING: Greater Toronto region. SUBJECTS: All 571 patients referred to an organized referral office by cardiologists at hospitals without on-site revascularization facilities between Jan. 3, 1989, and June 30, 1991. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction; proportions of patients waiting longer than the maximum period recommended for their urgency rating; mean waiting times for various subgroups; and correlations among referring physicians'' urgency ratings, computer-generated multifactorial urgency scores and waiting times. RESULTS: Of the 496 patients accepted for a procedure 5 had fatal cardiac events and 3 nonfatal myocardial infarction. Events occurred three times more often in patients with left mainstem disease than in those in other anatomic categories (relative risk [RR] 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48 to 6.27, p = 0.03). Both the computer-generated scores and the referring physicians'' scores were correlated with the actual waiting time (r = 0.46 and 0.57 respectively). Waiting times and the proportion of patients with excessive waiting times fell during the study period (p < 0.0001). However, urgent cases were much less likely to be done "on time" than those with a recommended waiting time of more than 2 weeks (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.25, p < 0.0001). The mean wait for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was 22.73 days if the referral office was allowed to find a surgeon or interventional cardiologist and 35.31 days if one was requested (p = 0.002 after adjustment for urgency scores). CONCLUSIONS: Death of a patient on the waiting list is uncommon in an organized referral system. Patients with left main-stem disease are at higher risk of death than those in other anatomic categories. There were significant correlations between referring physicians'' ratings of urgency, multifactorial urgency scores and actual waiting times. Expansion of capacity for CABG led to shorter waiting times, but patients with unstable symptoms continued to wait longer than recommended. Requests for a specific surgeon caused significantly longer delays.     

Access to adult liver transplantation in Canada: a survey and ethical analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the substantive and procedural criteria used for placing patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation and for allocating available livers to patients on the waiting list; to identify principal decision-makers and the main factors limiting liver transplantation in Canada; and to examine how closely cadaveric liver allocation resembles theoretic models of source allocation. DESIGN: Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Medical directors of all seven Canadian adult liver transplantation centres, or their designates. Six of the questionnaires were completed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative importance of substantive and procedural criteria used to place patients in the waiting list for liver transplantation and to allocate available livers. Identification of principal decision-makers and main limiting factors to adult liver transplantation. RESULTS: Alcoholism, drug addiction, HIV positivity, primary liver cancer, noncompliance and hepatitis B were the most important criteria that had a negative influence on decisions to place patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation. Severity of disease and urgency were the most important criteria used for selecting patients on the waiting list for transplantation. Criteria that were inconsistent across the centres included social support (for deciding who is placed on the waiting list) and length of time on the waiting list (for deciding who is selected from the list). Although a variety of people were reported as being involved in these decisions, virtually all were reported to be health to be health care professionals. Thirty-seven patients died while waiting for liver transplantation in 1991; the scarcity of cadaveric livers was the main limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria for resource allocation decisions regarding liver transplantation are generally consistent among the centres across Canada, although some important inconsistencies remain. Because patients die while on the waiting list and because the primary limiting factor is organ supply, increased organ acquisition efforts are needed.     

The extent of the two tier service for fundholders.

OBJECTIVE--To examine possible differential changes in outpatient referrals to orthopaedic clinics, attendances, and waiting times between fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners. DESIGN--Observational controlled study of referrals by general practitioners to orthopaedic outpatients between April 1991 and March 1995. SETTING--District health authority in south-west England. SUBJECTS--10 fundholding practices with 108,300 registered patients; 22 control practices with 159,900 registered patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in age standardised referral and outpatient attendance ratios for the year before and the two years after achieving fundholder status; changes in outpatient waiting times. RESULTS--In the year before achieving fundholding status both groups were referring more patients than were being seen. Two years later, referral and attendance ratios had increased by 13% and 36% respectively for fundholders and 32% and 59% for controls, and both groups were referring fewer patients than were being seen. Attendances represented 112% of referrals for fundholders and 104% for controls. In 1991-2, a similar proportion of patients in the two groups was seen within three months of referral. The two hospitals that set up specific clinics exclusively for fundholders showed faster access for patients of fundholders by 1993-4, as did a third hospital without such clinics by 1994-5. CONCLUSIONS--Fundholders increased their orthopaedic referrals less than did controls and achieved a better balance between outpatient appointments and referrals. Their patients were likely to be seen more quickly, particularly if the hospital provided special clinics exclusively for fundholders. Lack of case mix information makes it impossible to judge whether these differences benefit or disadvantage patients.     

General Surgical Pre-admission Clinic

Ninety-nine patients from a non-urgent general surgical waiting list were randomly selected for either direct admission to a hospital bed or review at a preadmission clinic. A considerable reduction in subsequent bed occupancy was shown in the latter group. The findings suggest that more detailed review of patients in the outpatient department would result in the more efficient use of hospital facilities.     

Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and mental healthcare professionals within the context of reforms in Quebec

Background In the context of the high prevalence and impact of mental disorders worldwide, and less than optimal utilisation of services and adequacy of care, strengthening primary mental healthcare should be a leading priority. This article assesses the state of collaboration among general practitioners (GPs), psychiatrists and psychosocial mental healthcare professionals, factors that enable and hinder shared care, and GPs’ perceptions of best practices in the management of mental disorders. A collaboration model is also developed.Methods The study employs a mixed-method approach, with emphasis on qualitative investigation. Drawing from a previous survey representative of the Quebec GP population, 60 GPs were selected for further investigation.Results Globally, GPs managed mental healthcare patients in solo practice in parallel or sequential follow-up with mental healthcare professionals. GPs cited psychologists and psychiatrists as their main partners. Numerous hindering factors associated with shared care were found: lack of resources (either professionals or services); long waiting times; lack of training, time and incentives for collaboration; and inappropriate GP payment modes. The ideal practice model includes GPs working in multidisciplinary group practice in their own settings. GPs recommended expanding psychosocial services and shared care to increase overall access and quality of care for these patients.Conclusion As increasing attention is devoted worldwide to the development of optimal integrated primary care, this article contributes to the discussion on mental healthcare service planning. A culture of collaboration has to be encouraged as comprehensive services and continuity of care are key recovery factors of patients with mental disorders.     

Study of Dyspepsia in a General Practice as Assessed by Endoscopy and Radiology

Fifty consecutive patients presenting in a general practice with dyspepsia were studied. Each patient was referred for a combined barium-meal examination and cholecystogram, followed by fibreoptic endoscopy of the oesophagus, stomach, and duodenum. Thirty patients had a specific lesion of the upper digestive tract and a further four had gall-bladder disease; of these, 16 required surgical treatment. Endoscopy in the remaining 16 patients showed nine with mucosal abnormalities, leaving only seven patients to be classified as normal.The advantage of having an endoscopy service to supplement radiological investigation of dyspepsia is shown.     

Mortality in elderly patients admitted for respite care.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether admitting elderly patients to hospital to give temporary relief to their carers is associated with increased mortality. DESIGN--Prospective multicentre study comparing the mortality of patients admitted on a one off or rotational basis with that experienced while they were awaiting admission. SETTING--A wide range of urban and rural district general, geriatric or long stay, and general practitioner hospitals. PATIENTS--474 Patients aged 70 or over who had 601 admissions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Death. RESULTS--16 (3.4%) Of the 474 patients (2.7% of all 601 admissions) died while in hospital during an average stay of 15.7 days whereas 23 (4.9%) patients died while awaiting admission (average waiting time was 34.2 days). The 16 deaths in hospital and the 23 deaths during the longer waiting period correspond to death rates of 19.9 and 12.5 per 10,000 person days respectively. The difference between these of 7.4 is not statistically significant (95% confidence interval -3.6 to 18.3). The estimated relative risk of dying in hospital is 1.59 but the 95% confidence interval is wide (0.84 to 3.01). CONCLUSION--Although the death rates are slightly higher in those admitted to hospital for relief care than in those awaiting admission, the difference was not significant, and the death rate in both groups was reassuringly small.     

Consultant physician to outpatients.

Analysis of the records of the last 450 outpatients referred to me showed that the basic disorder of at least one in three lay in the psyche, and there was a large emotional element in many of the others. None were put on a waiting list for admission. Not only should physicians be generalists most of the time (whether or not they have a special interest) but most medical problems are best dealt with by the GP. Only occasionally can the physician attach a precise diagnosis to a patient who has been an obscure problem to his GP, and the physician''s most important function is to reassure the patient and explain his symptoms. Routine investigations seldom benefit the patient. If there could be a more equitable distribution of GPs of high quality with good back-up facilities fewer general and many fewer specialist physicians would be needed.     

Grampian Health Board's joint drug formulary.

OBJECTIVE--To develop a model for creating a joint general practice-hospital formulary, using the example of ulcer healing drugs. DESIGN--A joint formulary development group produced draft guidelines based on an earlier hospital formulary, which were sent to interested local general practitioners for consultation. Revised guidelines were then drawn up and forwarded to the health board''s medicines committee for approval and distribution. SETTING--Grampian Health Board. SUBJECTS--Nine members of joint formulary development group plus local general practitioners who were invited to comment on a list of 11 ulcer healing drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Degree of coincidence of drugs selected by hospital doctors and general practitioners. RESULTS--The ulcer healing drugs selected by the panel of general practitioners and by hospital doctors were highly coincident. The cost of one day''s treatment with drugs varied considerably between hospital and general practice--for example, one drug cost 46p in hospital and 1 pounds in general practice and another cost 1.26 pounds in hospital and 1.01 pounds in general practice. Overall, six drugs cost more in hospital and five cost more in general practice. CONCLUSIONS--A joint formulary for use in hospitals and general practice in a health board can be devised fairly simply by consultation as virtually the same drugs are used in both types of practice. It should influence the health board''s expenditure on drugs and affect the choice of drugs when a patient is discharged from hospital or is referred to any hospital in the region.     

Laboratory and radiological investigations in general practice. I-Type requested and rate of use.

The use that 30 general practitioners in four group practices made of open access laboratory and radiological facilities was studied for one year. We were particularly interested in whether general practitioners hoped to exclude rather than confirm abnormality when requesting investigations. All but two of the general practitioners studied used investigations to exclude abnormality to a greater extent than to confirm it. The rate at which the practices investigated patients and the number of investigations requested were appreciably different and were different for individual general practitioners, part time general practitioners requesting more investigations than trainees and full time general practitioners. Haematological investigations accounted for over 30% of requests for investigations in all but one practice, biochemical investigations being requested as often as bacteriological investigations in two of the four practices. The ratio of expected to unexpected results varied among general practitioners; no general practitioner had more unexpected results and the range of ratios was similar for full time and part time general practitioners and for trainees. The proportion of patients with abnormalities uncovered by each practice increased disproportionately as the use of investigations increased, supporting a higher rather than lower rate of investigation among general practitioners. Compared with the results of other studies the use of the radiological facilities available was low. X ray examinations of the skeleton were requested more than chest and contrast media examinations by three of the four practices. Most x ray examinations were used to exclude rather than confirm abnormality by all the practices, with over 85% of results confirming the general practitioner''s initial diagnosis.