ABSTRACT
Interspecialty referrals are an essential part of most inpatient stays. With over 130 referrals occurring per week at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, the process must be efficient and safe. The current paper-based 'white card' system was felt to be inefficient, and a Trust incident highlighted patient safety concerns. Questionnaires reinforced the need for improvement, with concerns such as a lack of referral traceability and delays in the referral delivery due to workload. The aims of the project were to improve patient safety and junior doctor efficiency in the referral process. Through appreciative enquiry and the PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) model, an electronic referral system was developed, piloted within two specialties and later expanded to others with improvements made along the way based on user feedback. The system includes novel features including specialties 'acknowledging' a referral to allow referral progress to be tracked. The system stores all referrals, creating a fully auditable inpatient referral pathway. Qualitative data indicated improvement to patient safety and user experience (n=31). Timings for referrals were measured over a 6-month period; referrals became faster with the electronic system, with average time from decision to refer to referral submission improving from 2.1 hours to 1.9 hours, with a noted statistically significant improvement in timings on a statistical process control chart. An unexpected benefit was that patients were also reviewed faster by specialties. Measuring these changes presented a significant challenge due to the complexity of the referral process, and this was a big limitation. Overall, the re-design of a paper-based referral system into an electronic system has been proven to be more efficient and felt to be safer for patients. This is a sustainable change which is being rolled out Trust-wide. We hope that the reporting of this project will help others considering reviewing their inpatient referral pathways.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different induction protocols involving gonadotropins with intrauterine insemination (IUI). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of 648 IUI cycles. Some patients had gonadotropin injections alone before human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and IUI (human menopausal gonadotropin protocol); others were given oral medications, then gonadotropins before hCG and IUI (combination protocol). Outcomes included pregnancy rates, multiple birth rates, endometrial thickness, number of ovarian follicles, injection days, ampules of gonadotropins and cost. RESULTS: The combination protocol was more cost-effective. In first cycles, pregnancy rates, multiple birth rates, number of large follicles produced and cancellation rates were similar. The combination group had fewer days of injections and fewer ampules used. When all cycles were analyzed, the multiple birth rate was lower in the combination group. Comparing the different oral medications in the combination protocols, letrozole yielded higher pregnancy rates than tamoxifen or clomiphene. Multiple birth rates were similar for all oral medications. CONCLUSION: Combination protocols are less costly and equally effective, with potentially fewer multiple births than with gonadotropins alone. Letrozole may be more effective than clomiphene and tamoxifen in a combination protocol.
