Primary care referrals of patients with potentially serious diseases to the emergency department or a quick diagnosis unit: a cross-sectional retrospective study

BMC Family Practice

Research Article

David Nicolás¹  Alfonso López-Soto¹  Xavier Bosch¹  Emmanuel Coloma¹  Sara Fernández¹  Ona Escoda¹  Antonio Coca¹ 

[1] Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Clínic, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), University of Barcelona, 08036, Villarroel 170, Barcelona, Spain;

关键词: Quick diagnosis unit;    Emergency department;    Primary care;    Referrals;    Anemia;    Cancer;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2296-15-75

 received in 2013-09-14, accepted in 2014-04-22,  发布年份 2014

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIn Spain, primary healthcare (PHC) referrals for diagnostic procedures are subject to long waiting-times, and physicians and patients often use the emergency department (ED) as a shortcut. We aimed to determine whether patients evaluated at a hospital outpatient quick diagnosis unit (QDU) who were referred to ED from 12 PHC centers could have been directly referred to QDU, thus avoiding ED visits. As a secondary objective, we determined the proportion of QDU patients who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of patients with potentially serious conditions attended by the QDU from December 2007 to December 2012. We established 2 groups of patients: 1) patients referred from PHC to QDU (PHC-QDU group) and 2) patients referred from PHC to ED, then to QDU (PHC-ED-QDU group). Two observers assessed the appropriateness/inappropriateness of each referral using a scoring system. The interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa index. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the dependent variable ‘ED referral’.ResultsWe evaluated 1186 PHC-QDU and 1004 PHC-ED-QDU patients and estimated that 93.1% of PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU. In contrast, 96% of PHC-QDU patients were found to be appropriately referred to QDU first. The agreement for PHC-QDU referrals (PHC-QDU group) was rated as excellent (ϰ = 0.81), while it was rated as good for PHC-ED referrals (PHC-ED-QDU group) (ϰ = 0.75). The mean waiting-time for the first QDU visit was longer in PHC-QDU (4.8 days) than in PHC-ED-QDU (2.6 days) patients (P = .001). On multivariate analysis, anemia (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.49–4.55, P < .001), rectorrhagia (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.10–3.77, P = .01) and febrile syndrome (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.33-4.12, P = .002) were independent factors associated with ED referral. Nearly one-fifth of all QDU patients were found who might have been evaluated in a less rapid, non-QDU setting.ConclusionsMost PHC-ED-QDU patients might have been directly referred to QDU from PHC, avoiding the inconvenience of the ED visit. A stricter definition of QDU evaluation criteria may be needed to improve and hasten PHC referrals.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Bosch et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014