The challenge of long waiting lists: how we implemented a GP referral system for non-urgent specialist' appointments at an Australian public hospital

Abstract

Our ProblemThe length of wait lists to access specialist clinics in the public system is problematic for Queensland Health, general practitioners and patients. To address this issue at The Townsville Hospital, the GP Liaison Officer, GPs and hospital staff including specialists, collaborated to develop a process to review patients waiting longer than two years. GPs frequently send referrals to public hospital specialist clinics. Once received, referrals are triaged to Category A, B or C depending on clinical criteria resulting in appointment timeframes of 30, 90 or 365 days for each category, respectively. However, hospitals often fail to meet these targets, creating a long wait list. These wait listed patients are only likely to be seen if their condition deteriorates and an updated referral upgrades them to Category A.Process to Address the ProblemA letter sent to long wait patients offered two options 1) take no action if the appointment was no longer required or 2) visit their GP to update their referral on a clinic specific template if they felt the referral was still required. Local GPs were advised of the trial and provided education on the new template and minimum data required for specialist referrals.What HappenedIn 2008, 872 letters were sent to long wait orthopaedic patients and 101 responded. All respondents were seen at specially arranged clinics. Of these, 16 patients required procedures and the others were discharged. In 2009 the process was conducted in the specialties of orthopaedics, ENT, neurosurgery, urology, and general surgery. Via this new process 6885 patients have been contacted, 633 patients have been seen by public hospital specialists at specially arranged clinics and 197 have required a procedure.LearningsSince the start of this process in 2008, the wait time to access a specialist appointment has reduced from eight to two years. The process described here is achievable across a range of specialties, deliverable within the routine of the referral centre and identifies the small number of people on the long wait list in need of a procedure.

Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence

“…Process change interventions included: designated appointment slots and fast-track clinics for primary care referrals (n = 6), [60][61][62][63][64][65] direct access to screening (n = 9), 66 to referral (individual contact between a specialist and GP) (n = 11), [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85] electronic referral systems (n = 10), [86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] decision support tools (n = 10), [96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105] and waiting list review or watchful waiting (n = 3). [106][107][108] The overall picture for interventions that aim to moderate referral outcomes by changing an element of the referral process is mixed. Stronger evidence exists for electronic referral interventions (positive effects on referral, appropriate referral, GP satisfaction, reduction in non-attendance, waiting times, and transfer of information) and interventions including specialist consultation prior to referral (positive effects on number of referrals [referrals avoided], time to treatment, accuracy of diagnosis, and patient evaluation of services).…”

Assessing the quality of referral letters written by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in rural Iran

“…Structured referral sheets, a strategy to improve the communication process and facilitate patient information flow between service providers, are indeed a kind of checklist that guides the referring physician to provide predetermined data in the referral process 7 .…”

Análise das condições para diagnóstico de doenças reumáticas na atenção básica de saúde na cidade de Sorocaba‐SP

“…Além disso, nota-se em diversas descriç ões encaminhamentos de baixa qualidade e tratamentos equivocados. [3][4][5][6] O objetivo deste estudo é determinar quais os principais fatores que dificultam o diagnóstico das doenças reumáticas mais prevalentes e de baixa complexidade pelos médicos da UBS, o que pode, portanto, levar a uma baixa resolutividade na solução desses casos. Foram enviados os questionários, a partir da Secretaria Municipal de Saúde e após a aprovação pelo Comitê de Ética local (CEP-PUC/SP), a todos os profissionais médicos da rede básica, com um número total de 136.…”