Prioritisation of vascular outpatient appointments cannot be based on referral letters alone.

BACKGROUND: Vascular referrals include patients with conditions varying from varicose veins of cosmetic nuisance to patients with critical ischaemia, transient ischaemic attacks and abdominal aortic aneurysms. A large number of such referrals are received each week from general practitioners. It is important to prioritise patients with conditions that need to be dealt with quickly. OBJECTIVE: We prospectively reviewed referral letters to two vascular units, one in South Wales and one in the Oxford region to assess whether prioritisation can be made on the basis of referral letters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All GP referral letters were studied for four months. Only patients with lower limb ischaemic symptoms were included. Degree of urgency requested by the GP was also noted. RESULTS: Of 174 referrals for potential lower limb ischaemia analysed, 145 (83%) proved to be due to peripheral vascular disease. Of these 145 referrals, 72% were referred for claudication. Only 37% and 13% respectively mentioned claudication distance and/or rest pain. Risk factors with reference to diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, ischaemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease and smoking were made in 19%, 43%, 23%, 23%, 10%, 14%, 31% of letters respectively. Clinical signs were poorly documented, with 90% of referrals failing to mention presence or absence of critical ischaemic signs. The GP's own assessment of urgency was not stated in 66% of letters, without which only 3% of patients were seen in the clinic within four weeks, compared with 22% in those in whom urgency was stated. Six per cent of patients when reviewed in outpatients were found to have sufficiently severe symptoms to warrant immediate admission. Regional variation was observed with 57% of Royal Glamorgan Hospital referral letters documenting degree of urgency compared with only 23% of Royal Berkshire Hospital letters (p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most referral letters were poorly documented with regard to key symptoms, risk factors and clinical signs. The degree of urgency was often not stated. The creation of referral protocols is now being considered.

Management of cardiovascular risk factors by primary care physicians in patients with peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with significant coronary artery disease (CAD) are now intensively treated by primary care physicians predominantly because of government pressure and remuneration to prescribe anti-platelet and anti-hyperlipidaemic drugs. Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) with the identical risk factors appeared to us to be less intensively investigated and treated by primary care physicians. OBJECTIVE: To review the treatment of risk factors in all patients referred to two vascular clinics with a diagnosis of suspected PAD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Vascular outpatient clinic in two district general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 124 consecutive new patients were studied to determine risk factors and appropriate treatment. RESULTS: Of the 124 patients, 85 (68%) were confirmed to have PAD without evidence of symptomatic CAD. In the PAD alone group, less than 25% received anti-smoking advice (p < 0.0001) and only 36% were prescribed anti-platelet drugs (p = 0.016). Seventy-three per cent of the overall referred patients with hypertension had been treated for this condition and the blood pressure was normal in 71% of the patients with PAD. In patients with hyperlipidaemia, statins had been prescribed in 92% of patients with coexistent symptomatic CAD, but only in 64% of patients with PAD alone (p = 0.009). In the patients with diabetes, only 66% of the PAD alone group had adequate control of their blood sugar (p = 0.185). CONCLUSIONS: It would appear that patients with CAD and PAD are being treated successfully for their risk factors, but patients with PAD alone, sharing the same common risk factors, are being less than optimally treated.