Elwyn G J, Williams L A, Barry S, Kinnersley P
Four Elms Medical Centre, Cardiff.
BMJ. 1996 Apr 6;312(7035):887-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7035.887.
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.
Record review by one general practitioner and a radiologist, and discussion with patients of management alternatives.
Six partner city centre urban fund-holding general practice, list size 8651 (29% low deprivation payment status).
116 adults on an orthopaedic waiting list.
List accuracy (patient details and status on waiting list); clinical priority (severity of condition); further investigations (results of tests after radiological review).
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.
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.
对目前综合诊疗骨科门诊预约等候名单上的所有患者进行审查,内容包括名单的准确性、临床优先级以及在就诊前是否需要进一步的影像学检查。
由一名全科医生和一名放射科医生进行记录审查,并与患者讨论管理方案。
一家有六名合伙人的市中心城市基金持有型综合诊疗机构,名单规模为8651人(29%为低贫困支付状态)。
骨科等候名单上的116名成年人。
名单准确性(患者详细信息及在等候名单上的状态);临床优先级(病情严重程度);进一步检查(影像学检查后的检查结果)。
32名患者(28%)因信息不准确被从等候名单中移除。14名患者被认为具有高优先级,并利用等候名单倡议基金转至其他医院。在这些患者中,5名同意转至其他医院(重新转诊后平均三个月内完成治疗),6名不希望重新转诊,2名未前来讨论提议并仍留在原等候名单上。一名优先患者进行了进一步的影像学检查,得到安抚后被从等候名单中移除。10名患者进行了进一步检查。结果6名患者被转至其他医院,3名被从等候名单中移除,1名寻求私人医疗服务。
对一家综合诊疗机构骨科等候名单上的患者进行系统审查,虽然耗时,但能发现名单中的不准确之处并改变管理方式。成本需要进一步评估,但如果这些结果普遍存在,可为患者带来巨大益处。