What proportion of adult allergy referrals to secondary care could be dealt with in primary care by a GP with special interest?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith HE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4722667 | biostudies-other | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care nurses play an important role in diabetes care, and were introduced in GP-practice partly to shift care from hospital to primary care. The aim of this study was to assess whether the referral rate for hospital treatment for diabetes type II (T2DM) patients has changed with the introduction of primary care nurses, and whether these changes were related to the number of diabetes-related contacts in a general practice.MethodsHealthcare utilisation was assessed for a period of 365 days for 301 newly diagnosed and 2124 known T2DM patients in 2004 and 450 and 3226 patients in 2006 from general practices that participated in the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH). Multilevel logistic and linear regression analyses were used to analyse the effect of the introduction of primary care nurses on referrals to internists, ophthalmologists and cardiologists and diabetes-related contact rate. Separate analyses were conducted for newly diagnosed and known T2DM patients.ResultsReferrals to internists for newly diagnosed T2DM patients decreased between 2004 and 2006 (OR:0.44; 95%CI:0.22-0.87) in all practices. For known T2DM patients no overall decrease in referrals to internists was found, but practices with a primary care nurse had a lower trend (OR:0.59). The number of diabetes-related contacts did not differ between practices with and without primary care nurses. Cardiologists' and ophthalmologists' referral rate did not change.ConclusionsThe introduction of primary care nurses seems to have led to a shift of care from internists to primary care for known diabetes patients, while the diabetes-related contact rate seem to have remained unchanged.
| S-EPMC2924333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.
| S-EPMC5995363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMelanoma accounts for 90% of skin cancer mortality and typically presents in primary care, where it can be challenging to distinguish from benign lesions. Dermoscopy is a tool for skin visualization that is routinely used for melanoma diagnosis in secondary care. However, the role of dermoscopy in primary care remains unclear.ObjectivesTo determine views on, and use of, dermoscopy by dermatology-interested general practitioners (GPs).MethodsAn online questionnaire was emailed to the UK Primary Care Dermatology Society members in February 2018, and responses collected over the following 4 weeks.ResultsA total of 205 responses were analysed. Most respondents were GPs (94%), aged over 50 (53%), had a postgraduate dermatological qualification (67%) and used dermoscopy regularly when reviewing pigmented skin lesions (97%). Dermoscopy use was commoner amongst GPs who had worked longer in primary care and had experience of secondary care dermatology. Most had undertaken training in dermoscopy (91%), although one-fifth (20%) had not updated their training in over 5 years. Most of those who had received only 1 day of face-to-face training reported feeling confident using a dermatoscope. Few respondents (11%) reported access to teledermatology or teledermoscopy for urgent or routine referrals.ConclusionsUK GPs with a special interest in dermatology are routinely using dermoscopy in the primary care setting. More research is needed to establish optimal approaches to training and updating GP dermoscopy skills. When dermoscopy has been shown to be safe, effective, acceptable and cost-effective in this setting, more GPs may also be able to gain and maintain the skills to implement dermoscopy into routine primary care. Technological advances, including incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms to guide GPs, could also contribute to widening use of dermoscopy among GPs.
| S-EPMC6767170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The referral letter is an important document facilitating the transfer of care from a general practitioner (GP) to secondary care. Hospital doctors have often criticised the quality and content of referral letters, and the effectiveness of improvement efforts remains uncertain.A cluster randomised trial was conducted using referral templates for patients in four diagnostic groups: dyspepsia, suspected colorectal cancer, chest pain and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The GP surgery was the unit of randomisation. Of the 14 surgeries served by the University Hospital of North Norway Harstad, seven were randomised to the intervention group. Intervention GPs used referral templates soliciting core clinical information when initiating a new referral in one of the four clinical areas. Intermittent surgery visits by study personnel were also carried out. A total of 500 patients were included, with 281 in the intervention and 219 in the control arm. Referral quality scoring was performed by three blinded raters. Data were analysed using multi-level regression modelling. All analyses were conducted on intention-to-treat basis.In the final multilevel model, referrals in the intervention group scored 18% higher (95% CI (11%, 25%), p?<?0.001) on the referral quality score than the control group. The model also showed that board certified GPs and GPs in larger surgeries produced referrals of significantly higher quality.In this study, the dissemination of referral templates coupled with intermittent surgery visits produced higher quality referrals.This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is NCT01470963.
| S-EPMC4553012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aims of our study were to describe the disease spectrum of refugees, to analyse to what extent their healthcare needs could be met in an outpatient primary care walk-in clinic and which cases required additional services from secondary care (ie, outpatient specialists or hospitals).DesignRetrospective longitudinal observational study.SettingThe study was based on routine data from a walk-in clinic in the largest central first reception centre in Hamburg, Germany between 4 November 2015 and 21 July 2016.Participants1467 asylum seekers with 4006 episodes of care (ie, distinctive health problems) resulting in 5545 consultations. The patients were 60% men and had a mean age of 23.2 years. About 90% of the patients were from Central Asia or from the Middle East and North Africa.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe endpoint of our analyses was referral to secondary care. Time to event was defined as days under treatment until the first referral. Predictor variables were the patients' diagnoses grouped in 46 categories. The data set was analysed by Cox regression allowing for multiple failure times per patient. This analysis was adjusted for age, sex and country of origin.ResultsReferrals to secondary care occurred in 15.5% of the episodes. The diagnosis groups with the highest referral rates were 'eye' (HR 4.9; 95% CI 3.12 to 7.8; p≤0.001), 'teeth/gum symptom/complaint or disease' (3.51; 2.52 to 4.9; p≤0.001) and 'urological system/female or male genital' (2.50; 1.66 to 3.77; p≤0.001). Age, sex and country of origin had no significant effect on time until referral.ConclusionsIn most cases, the walk-in clinic physicians could provide first-line medical care for the health problems of patients not integrated in the German healthcare system. Additional resources were needed particularly not only for visual impairment and dental problems but also for psychological disorders, antenatal care and certain infections and injuries.
| S-EPMC7583080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA comparison of glaucoma referral refinement schemes (GRRS) in the UK during a time period of considerable change in national policy and guidance.DesignRetrospective multisite review.SettingThe outcomes of clinical examinations by optometrists with a specialist interest in glaucoma (OSIs) were compared with optometrists with no specialist interest in glaucoma (non-OSIs). Data from Huntingdon and Nottingham assessed non-OSI findings, while Manchester and Gloucestershire reviewed OSI findings.Participants1086 patients. 434 patients were from Huntingdon, 179 from Manchester, 204 from Gloucestershire and 269 from Nottingham.ResultsThe first-visit discharge rate (FVDR) for all time periods for OSIs was 14.1% compared with 36.1% from non-OSIs (difference 22%, CI 16.9% to 26.7%; p<0.001). The FVDR increased after the April 2009 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) glaucoma guidelines compared with pre-NICE, which was particularly evident when pre-NICE was compared with the current practice time period (OSIs 6.2-17.2%, difference 11%, CI -24.7% to 4.3%; p=0.18, non-OSIs 29.2-43.9%, difference 14.7%, CI -27.8% to -0.30%; p=0.03). Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) was the commonest reason for referral for OSIs and non-OSIs, 28.7% and 36.1%, respectively, of total referrals. The proportion of referrals for elevated IOP increased from 10.9% pre-NICE to 28.0% post-NICE for OSIs, and from 19% to 45.1% for non-OSIs.ConclusionsIn terms of 'demand management', OSIs can reduce FVDR of patients reviewed in secondary care; however, in terms of 'patient safety' this study also shows that overemphasis on IOP as a criterion for referral is having an adverse effect on both the non-OSIs and indeed the OSIs ability to detect glaucomatous optic nerve features. It is recommended that referral letters from non-OSIs be stratified for risk, directing high-risk patients straight to secondary care, and low-risk patients to OSIs.
| S-EPMC3717451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Diabetes Prevention Program, an intensive lifestyle change program, effectively reduces the risk of progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes but is underutilized. An implementation study using formative research was undertaken to increase Diabetes Prevention Program referrals at a primary care clinic.Study designA pragmatic, cluster randomized, mixed-methods study.Setting/particpantsClusters were teams of primary care clinicians from 2 primary care clinics. The 3 intervention clusters had 8-11 clinicians, and the 3 control clusters had 7-20 clinicians.InterventionImplementation activities occurred from December 2017 to February 2019. The activities included targeted clinician education, a prediabetes clinician champion, and a custom electronic health record report identifying patients with prediabetes.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was referral of patients with prediabetes to the institutional Diabetes Prevention Program. Study data, including patient demographic and clinical variables, came from electronic health record. Interviews with clinicians evaluated the implementation strategies. Generalized estimating equation analyses that accounted for multiple levels of correlation and interview content analysis occurred in 2019.ResultsStudy clinicians cared for 2,992 patients with a prediabetes diagnosis or HbA1c indicative of prediabetes (5.7%-6.4%). Clinicians in the intervention clusters referred 6.9% (87 of 1,262) of patients with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program and those in the control clusters referred 1.5% (26 of 1,730). When adjusted for patient age, sex, race, HbA1c value, HbA1c test location, and insurance type, intervention clinicians had 3.85 (95% CI=0.40, 36.78) greater odds of referring a patient with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program. The 11 interviewed intervention clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of the interventions, reporting the prediabetes clinic champion (n=7, 64%) and educational presentations (n=6, 55%) as most helpful.ConclusionsIntervention clinicians were more likely to make Diabetes Prevention Program referrals; however, the study lacked power to achieve statistical significance. Clinician interviews suggested that intervention components that triggered Diabetes Prevention Program referrals varied among clinicians.
| S-EPMC7346283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDisparities in quality of care according to patient race and socioeconomic status persist in the US. Differential referral patterns to specialist physicians might be associated with observed disparities.ObjectiveTo examine whether differences exist between Black and White Medicare beneficiaries in the observed patterns of patient sharing between primary care physicians (PCPs) and physicians in the 6 specialties to which patients were most frequently referred.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional observational study of Black and White Medicare beneficiaries used claims data from 2009 to 2010 on 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries who were seen by PCPs and selected high-volume specialists in 12 health care markets with at least 10% of the population being Black. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 20, 2017, to September 30, 2020.ExposuresDifferences in patterns of patient sharing among Black and White patients.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care physician and specialist degree (the number of other PCPs or specialists to whom each physician is connected) and strength (the number of shared patients per connection, overall, for Black patients and White patients and after equalizing the numbers of Black and White patients per PCP), as well as distance between PCP and patient and specialist zip code centroids.ResultsThe 12 selected markets ranged in size from Manhattan, New York (187 054 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 9794 total physicians), to Tallahassee, Florida (44 644 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 847 total physicians). The percentage of Black beneficiaries ranged from 11.5% (Huntsville, Alabama) to 46.8% (Chicago, Illinois). The mean PCP-specialist degree (number of specialists with whom a PCP shares patients) was lower for Black patients than for White patients. For instance, the mean PCP-cardiologist degree across all markets for White patients was 17.5 compared with 8.8 for Black patients. After sampling White patients to equalize the numbers of patients seen, the degree differences narrowed but were still not equivalent in many markets (eg, for all specialties in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 4.5 for Black patients vs 5.7 for White patients). Specialist networks among White patients were much larger than those constructed based just on Black patients (eg, for cardiology across all markets: 135 for Black patients vs 330 for White patients), even after equalizing the numbers of patients seen per PCP (123 for Black patients vs 211 for White patients). The overall test for differences in referral patterns was statistically significant for all 6 specialties examined in 7 of the 12 markets and in 5 specialties for another 3.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that differences exist in specialist referral patterns by race among Medicare beneficiaries. This is an observational study, and thus some differences might have resulted from patient-initiated visits to specialists.
| S-EPMC7835717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about referrals from primary care providers (PCPs) for suspected hematologic malignancies, including their clinical triggers and frequency. A random sample of 190 Massachusetts PCPs were presented with a vignette concerning a patient with a new finding of moderate anemia, asked how they would respond, and then asked what they would do if the patient returned with persistent anemia plus one additional sign or symptom. We also asked about referral behaviors for suspected hematologic malignancies during the prior year. A total of 134 (70.5%) PCPs responded. At first anemia presentation,only 3.8% reported referring to hematology. The development of a second sign or symptom yielded higher referral rates: pancytopenia 588.7%, leukopenia 5 63.9%, thrombocytopenia 5 63.9%, lymphadenopathy 5 42.9%, leukocytosis 5 37.6%, night sweats 5 25.6%, and weight loss 5 23.3%. The median yearly number (interquartile range) of patients PCPs reported suspecting of having hematologic malignancy was 5 (3, 10), and the median formally referred was 5 (3, 10). We conclude that anemia plus signs and symptoms suggestive of myelodysplasia or leukemia (compared with those suggestive of lymphoma) are more likely to prompt hematology referral. In addition, given their rarity,the numbe
| S-EPMC3358503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Diagnostic errors causing harm in children are understudied, resulting in a knowledge gap regarding pediatricians' interest in reducing their incidence. METHODS:Electronic survey of general pediatricians focusing on diagnostic error incidence, errors they were interested in trying to improve, and errors reduced by their electronic health record (EHR). RESULTS:Of 300 contacted pediatricians, 77 (26%) responded, 58 (19%) served ambulatory patients, and 48 (16%) completed the entire questionnaire. Of these 48, 17 (35%) reported making a diagnostic error at least monthly, and 16 (33%) reported making a diagnostic error resulting in an adverse event at least annually. Pediatricians were "most" interested in "trying to improve" missed diagnosis of hypertension (17%), delayed diagnosis due to missed subspecialty referral (15%), and errors associated with delayed follow-up of abnormal laboratory values (13%). Among the 44 pediatricians with an EHR, 16 (36%) said it reduced the likelihood of missing obesity and 14 (32%) said it reduced the likelihood of missing hypertension. Also, 15 (34%) said it helped avoid delays in follow-up of abnormal laboratory values. A third (36%) reported no help in diagnostic error reduction from their EHR. CONCLUSIONS:Pediatricians self-report an appreciable number of diagnostic errors and were most interested in preventing high frequency, non-life-threatening errors. There exists a need to leverage EHRs to support error reduction efforts.
| S-EPMC5241907 | biostudies-literature