ABSTRACT
Background: Hospital crowding, ED waiting times and high demand for unscheduled care all place significant burdens on secondary care services. This impacts on patient care, staff morale and overall functioning of the whole healthcare system. Patient referrals from other healthcare providers often is a result of limited access to resources, specialists or because of acuity. However, some referrals may be more suitable for lower acuity settings, with the benefit of better overall patient experience. In addition, duplication of contacts with a healthcare professional may not result in additional benefit to patients, but may necessarily add to the patient journey and contribute to crowding. Objectives: We aimed to determine the originator of referrals to the ED. We also aimed to determine the proportion of referred patients who received any meaningful intervention at the ED. Finally, we aimed to estimate the proportion of patients referred who may have been suitable for direct inpatient referral or management in a lower acuity setting. Methods: We conducted a prospective evaluation of all referrals to the ED of a large urban hospital over 7 days. Routine anonymised demographic, diagnosis and intervention data were collected and simple descriptive analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel®. A validated algorithm was applied to determine suitability for lower acuity settings, and contextual secondary analysis was applied to determine choice of altResults: There were 168 formal referrals during the period evaluated (mean 24/day), of which data was available for 151. Most referrals were on Monday and Thursday. 39.7% were referred from the four regional District Health Facilities (DHF). 12 % were referred by specialists. There were significantly higher referrals from Local Health Centres located more than 5km of the hospital compared with those closer, although this could have been due to greater numbers outside the 5 km radius. 5.5% were thought suitable for primary care management and 31% could have been referred directly to an inpatient team if this were available. The majority (51.3%) of referred patients received no significant intervention in the ED, with almost 1 in 7 suitable for outpatient management. Conclusions: A significant number of patients referred to the ED may have been more appropriately directed. Direct special admission, access to outpatient referral slots or telephone advice from senior ED or specialty clinicians may prevent up to a half of referrals being seen by an ED clinician. This may reduce unnecessary transport, improve time and resource utilization and decongest the ED and hospital. Further large scale evaluation is warranted to investigate the predictors of referral, control for seniority, and make more robust recommendations for improving the patient journey ernate pathways.
