Cargando…

General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of general practitioner (GP) new referrals to a neurology department in terms of satisfaction for patient and doctor. DESIGN: Prospective study by questionnaire of patients, GPs and specialists. SETTING: Neurology hospital outpatient clinics. SUBJECTS: 339 consecutive new outpa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wiles, C M, Lindsay, M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of Physicians of London 1996
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401412/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8912281
_version_ 1783231042957606912
author Wiles, C M
Lindsay, M
author_facet Wiles, C M
Lindsay, M
author_sort Wiles, C M
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Assessment of general practitioner (GP) new referrals to a neurology department in terms of satisfaction for patient and doctor. DESIGN: Prospective study by questionnaire of patients, GPs and specialists. SETTING: Neurology hospital outpatient clinics. SUBJECTS: 339 consecutive new outpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall patient satisfaction with clinic attendance, with allocated time and waiting times after referral; GPs' reasons for referral, and satisfaction with outcome; specialists' actions in the clinic, views on referral. RESULTS: Some 67% of patients found the referral helpful; 23% felt there was insufficient time to explain fully their problem. Nearly half of the patients had waited ≥6 months for an appointment. The GP was uncertain of the diagnosis at referral in 76% of cases and found information from the clinic useful in 89%. Specialists made a new diagnosis in 40% of referrals, discharged 73% (with or without investigation) and admitted 11%; 76% of referrals were felt to be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and GPs usually found the referral helpful. Seeing patients more briefly is inappropriate since almost a third already felt consultation time to be short. Although some referrals may have been inappropriate, the dominant deficiency in the service was the time they had to wait after the referral. To satisfy local need, it is estimated that twice the present number of consultant neurologists would be required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5401412
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1996
publisher Royal College of Physicians of London
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54014122019-01-22 General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology Wiles, C M Lindsay, M J R Coll Physicians Lond Original Papers OBJECTIVE: Assessment of general practitioner (GP) new referrals to a neurology department in terms of satisfaction for patient and doctor. DESIGN: Prospective study by questionnaire of patients, GPs and specialists. SETTING: Neurology hospital outpatient clinics. SUBJECTS: 339 consecutive new outpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall patient satisfaction with clinic attendance, with allocated time and waiting times after referral; GPs' reasons for referral, and satisfaction with outcome; specialists' actions in the clinic, views on referral. RESULTS: Some 67% of patients found the referral helpful; 23% felt there was insufficient time to explain fully their problem. Nearly half of the patients had waited ≥6 months for an appointment. The GP was uncertain of the diagnosis at referral in 76% of cases and found information from the clinic useful in 89%. Specialists made a new diagnosis in 40% of referrals, discharged 73% (with or without investigation) and admitted 11%; 76% of referrals were felt to be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and GPs usually found the referral helpful. Seeing patients more briefly is inappropriate since almost a third already felt consultation time to be short. Although some referrals may have been inappropriate, the dominant deficiency in the service was the time they had to wait after the referral. To satisfy local need, it is estimated that twice the present number of consultant neurologists would be required. Royal College of Physicians of London 1996 /pmc/articles/PMC5401412/ /pubmed/8912281 Text en © Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1996 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits non-commercial use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Papers
Wiles, C M
Lindsay, M
General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology
title General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology
title_full General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology
title_fullStr General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology
title_full_unstemmed General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology
title_short General Practice Referrals to a Department of Neurology
title_sort general practice referrals to a department of neurology
topic Original Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401412/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8912281
work_keys_str_mv AT wilescm generalpracticereferralstoadepartmentofneurology
AT lindsaym generalpracticereferralstoadepartmentofneurology