Which factors decided general practitioners' choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: Parts of New Public Management-reforms of the public sector depend on introduction of market-like mechanisms to manage the sector, like free choice of hospital. However, patients may delegate the choice of hospital to agents like general practitioners (GPs). We have investigated which factors Danish GPs reported as decisive for their choice of hospital on behalf of patients, and their utilisation of formal and informal data sources when they chose a hospital on behalf of patients. METHODS: Retrospective questionnaire study of all of the 474 GPs practising in three counties which constituted a single uptake area. Patients were free to choose a hospital in another county in the country. The GPs were asked about responsibility for choice of the latest three patients referred by the GP to hospital; which of 16 factors influenced the choice of hospital; which of 15 sources of information about clinical quality at various hospitals/departments were considered relevant, and how often were six sources of information about waiting time utilised. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent (240 GPs) filled in and returned the questionnaire. One hundred and eighty-three GPs (76%) reported that they perceived that they chose the hospital on behalf of the latest referred patient. Short distance to hospital was the most common reason for choice of hospital.The most frequently used source of information about quality at hospital departments was anecdotal reports from patients referred previously, and the most important source of information about waiting time was the hospitals' letters of confirmation of referrals. CONCLUSIONS: In an area with free choice of public hospital most GPs perceived that they chose the hospital on behalf of patients. Short distance to hospital was the factor which most often decided the GPs' choice of hospital on behalf of patients. GPs attached little weight to official information on quality and service (waiting time) at hospitals or departments, focusing instead on informal sources like feedback from patients and colleagues and their experience with cooperation with the department or hospital.

Patients' experience of choosing an outpatient clinic in one county in Denmark: results of a patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Research on patients' choice of hospital has focused on inpatients' rather than outpatients' choice of provider. We have investigated Danish outpatients' awareness and utilisation of freedom of choice of provider; which factors influence outpatients' choice of hospital, and how socio-demographic variables influence these factors in a single uptake area, where patients were free to choose any public hospital, where care was provided free at the point of delivery, and where distance to the closest hospitals were short by international standards. METHODS: Retrospective questionnaire study of 4,232 outpatients referred to examination, treatment, or follow-up at one of nine somatic outpatient clinics in Roskilde County in two months of 2002, who had not been hospitalised within the latest 12 months. The patients were asked, whether they were aware of and utilised freedom of choice of hospital. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent (2,272 patients) filled in and returned the questionnaire. Forty-one percent of respondents were aware of their right to choose, and 53% of those patients utilised their right to choose. Awareness of freedom of choice of provider was reported to be especially high in female outpatients, patients with longer education, salaried employees in the public sector, and in patients referred to surgical specialties. Female outpatients and students were especially likely to report that they utilised their right to choose the provider. Short distance was the most important reason for outpatients' choice, followed by the GP's recommendations, short waiting time, and the patient's previous experience with the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients' awareness and utilisation of free choice of health care provider was low. Awareness of freedom of choice of provider differed significantly by specialty and patient's gender, education and employment. Female patients and students were especially likely to choose the clinic by themselves. Most outpatients chose the clinic closest to their home, the GP's recommendation and short waiting time being the second and third most important factors behind choice.

Prehospital interventions: on-scene-time and ambulance-technicians' experience.

INTRODUCTION: Very little evidence is available on the experience of ambulance-personnels or on the impact of prehospital interventions on total prehospital time. HYPOTHESIS: On-scene-time increases with the number of prehospital techniques used, and ambulance-technicians achieve only limited clinical experience in prehospital techniques. METHODS: Prospective, observational registry study including 56 ambulance technicians from two ambulance stations in the mixed urban/rural county and 5,557 patients who were brought to a hospital in 1998. The number of cases in which each ambulance-technician performed various kinds of prehospital techniques, and the average on-scene time for each prehospital technique and several combinations of prehospital techniques were calculated. RESULTS: There were large differences between the number of times each technique was used. On-scene time was smallest when no techniques were used and tended to increase with the number of interventions used. On-scene-time was relatively low for patients with cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: The Danish ambulance-technicians' curriculum includes interventions for which the technicians only achieve limited practical experience. Prehospital interventions are associated with an increase of on-scene time.