ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Within a program to improve referrals by primary care (PC) in Ourense (Spain), we implemented practice guidelines on dyspepsia and rectal bleeding. Our aim was to evaluate the reasons for referral to endoscopy, the appropriateness of these referrals, and wait times. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Ourense health area between February 2009 and January 2010. The endoscopies performed with the indications of dyspepsia and rectal bleeding requested directly from PC were compared with those referred initially to specialist care (SC). The reasons for the referral, the priority of the endoscopy, compliance with the protocol, endoscopic finding and the wait time from referral were gathered. RESULTS: During the period analyzed, 158 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (SC: 121; PC: 37) and 243 colonoscopies (SC: 193; PC: 50) were performed with the indications of dyspepsia and rectal bleeding. Among endoscopies, 34.5% and 77.7% were requested with high priority from PC and SC, respectively (p<0.001). The criteria for referral were met in 86.5% of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies and in 82% of colonoscopies requested from PC. No differences were found in endoscopic findings. The median wait time from referral was lower in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (PC: 105±5.5 days, SC: 174±17.8 days; p: 0.003) and colonoscopies (PC: 101±11.8 days, SC: 187±9.6 days; p<0.001) referred from PC. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the program for improved referrals by PC reduces wait times. The examinations requested complied with the indications.
Subject(s)
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/statistics & numerical data , Gastroenterology/organization & administration , Health Plan Implementation , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Adult , Aged , Clinical Protocols , Cohort Studies , Colonoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Dyspepsia/diagnosis , Female , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Program Evaluation , Rectum , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Regional Health Planning , Retrospective Studies , Spain , Waiting ListsABSTRACT
IntroducciónDentro del programa de aumento de capacidad resolutiva de atención primaria (AP) en Ourense se han implementado las guías de práctica clínica en dispepsia y rectorragia. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar los motivos de solicitud de las exploraciones, el nivel de adecuación de las solicitudes, los hallazgos endoscópicos y los tiempos de demora.Material y métodosEstudio de cohortes retrospectivo en el área sanitaria de Ourense entre febrero de 2009 y enero de 2010. Se analizaron las endoscopias realizadas con las indicaciones de dispepsia y rectorragia solicitadas directamente desde AP frente a las derivadas inicialmente a atención especializada (AE). Se recogieron los motivos de solicitud, el nivel de prioridad, la adecuación al protocolo, los hallazgos endoscópicos y los tiempos de demora desde la derivación.ResultadosEn el periodo analizado, se realizaron 158 endoscopias digestivas altas (EDA) (AE 121, AP 37) y 243 colonoscopias (AE 193, AP 50). Se solicitaron de forma preferente el 34,5% de las endoscopias de AP y el 77,7% de AE (p<0,001). El 86,5% de las EDA y el 82% de las colonoscopias solicitadas desde AP cumplieron los criterios de derivación. No se encontraron diferencias en los hallazgos. La mediana del tiempo de demora desde la derivación fue inferior tanto en la EDA (AP: 105±5,5 días; AE: 174±17,8 días; p: 0,003) como en la colonoscopia (AP: 101±11,8 días; AE: 187±9,6 días; p<0,001) solicitada desde AP.ConclusionesLa utilización del programa de aumento de capacidad resolutiva reduce los tiempos de demora. Las exploraciones solicitadas se han adecuado a las indicaciones (AU)
Introduction: Within a program to improve referrals by primary care (PC) in Ourense (Spain),we implemented practice guidelines on dyspepsia and rectal bleeding. Our aim was to evaluatethe reasons for referral to endoscopy, the appropriateness of these referrals, and wait times.Material and methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Ourense health areabetween February 2009 and January 2010. The endoscopies performed with the indications ofdyspepsia and rectal bleeding requested directly from PC were compared with those referredinitially to specialist care (SC). The reasons for the referral, the priority of the endoscopy,compliance with the protocol, endoscopic finding and the wait time from referral were gathered.Results: During the period analyzed, 158 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (SC: 121; PC: 37)and 243 colonoscopies (SC: 193; PC: 50) were performed with the indications of dyspepsiaand rectal bleeding. Among endoscopies, 34.5% and 77.7% were requested with high priorityfrom PC and SC, respectively (p < 0.001). The criteria for referral were met in 86.5% of uppergastrointestinal endoscopies and in 82% of colonoscopies requested from PC. No differenceswere found in endoscopic findings. The median wait time from referral was lower in uppergastrointestinal endoscopy (PC: 105±5.5 days, SC: 174±17.8 days; p: 0.003) and colonoscopies(PC: 101±11.8 days, SC: 187±9.6 days; p < 0.001) referred from PC.Conclusions: The use of the program for improved referrals by PC reduces wait times. Theexaminations requested complied with the indications (AU)
