Reasons for acute referrals to hospital from general practitioners and out-of-hours doctors in Norway: a registry-based observational study

Background General practitioners (GPs) and out-of-hours (OOH) doctors are gatekeepers to acute hospital admissions in many healthcare systems. The aim of the present study was to investigate the whole range of reasons for acute referrals to somatic hospitals from GPs and OOH doctors and referral rates for the most common reasons. We wanted to explore the relationship between some common referral diagnoses and the discharge diagnosis, and associations with patient’s gender, age, and GP or OOH doctor referral. Methods A registry-based study was performed by linking national data from primary care in the physicians’ claims database with hospital services data in the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR). The referring GP or OOH doctor was defined as the physician who had sent a claim for the patient within 24 h prior to an acute hospital stay. The reason for referral was defined as the ICPC-2 diagnosis used in the claim; the discharge diagnoses (ICD-10) came from NPR. Results Of all 265,518 acute hospital referrals from GPs or OOH doctors in 2017, GPs accounted for 43% and OOH doctors 57%. The overall referral rate per contact was 0.01 from GPs and 0.11 from OOH doctors, with large variations by referral diagnosis. Abdominal pain (D01) (8%) and chest pain (A11) (5%) were the most frequent referral diagnoses. For abdominal pain and chest pain referrals the most frequent discharge diagnosis was the corresponding ICD-10 symptom diagnosis, whereas for pneumonia-, appendicitis-, acute myocardial infarction- and stroke referrals the corresponding disease diagnosis was most frequent. Women referred with chest pain were less likely to be discharged with ischemic heart disease than men. Conclusions The reasons for acute referral to somatic hospitals from GPs and OOH doctors comprise a wide range of reasons, and the referral rates vary according to the severity of the condition and the different nature between GP and OOH services. Referral rates for OOH contacts were much higher than for GP contacts. Patient age, gender and referring service influence the relationship between referral and discharge diagnosis.

To which non-physician health professionals do French general practitioners refer their patients to and what factors are associated with these referrals? Secondary analysis of the French national cross-sectional ECOGEN study

Background Multiprofessional practice is a key component in primary care. Examining general practitioner (GP) referral frequency to non-physician health professionals (NPHP) can provide information about how primary care is organised and works which is useful for policymakers. Our study aimed to describe French GP referral frequency to various NPHPs in France and identify associated factors. Methods This is an ancillary study to the observational, cross-sectional (ECOGEN) study conducted in 2011/2012 in France among 128 GPs. Data about consultations using the standardised International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2), and patient and GP characteristics were collected from 20,613 GP consultations. Referrals were identified through inductive and deductive approaches using ICPC-2 codes, keywords, and deep, open manual searches. Referral frequency was described overall and per NPHP. Patient, GP, and consultation-related factors associated with referral rates were described for the three most frequently identified NPHPs. To minimise potential sources of bias, this observational study followed the STROBE guidelines. Results French GPs referred 6.8% of patients to NPHPs, with physiotherapists, podiatrists, and nurses accounting for 85.2% of referrals. Older patients, retired patients, multiple health problems managed, and longer consultation durations were found to be associated with higher referral rates (p < 0.001). Specific trends were observed for nurse, physiotherapist, and podiatrist referrals. Women (p < 0.001) and regular patients (p = 0.002) were more likely to receive physiotherapy referrals while people with no professional activity were less likely (p < 0.001). Female GPs and those working in urban practices were more likely to issue a physiotherapy referral (p < 0.001), while GPs working in rural practices (p < 0.001) and those with higher annual consultation numbers (p = 0.002) were more likely to refer to a nurse. Working in multiprofessional centres appeared to have little impact on referral rates, being only slightly associated with podiatrist referrals (p = 0.003). Conclusions Referral frequency is more associated with patient characteristics and clinical situations than GP-related factors suggesting patients needing referral most are most often referred. Furthermore, the three NPHPs that GPs refer to the most are those for which a referral is required for reimbursement in France, suggesting that health system legislation and NPHP reimbursement are strong determinants for referrals.

Adrenal incidentaloma: prevalence and referral patterns from routine practice in a large UK university teaching hospital

Context Adrenal incidentalomas are increasingly being identified during unrelated imaging. Unlike AI clinical management, data on referral patterns in routine practice are lacking. Objective To identify factors associated with AI referral Design We linked data from imaging reports and outpatient bookings from a large UK teaching hospital. We examined; (i) AI prevalence and (ii) pattern of referral to endocrinology, stratified by age, imaging modality, scan anatomical site, requesting clinical specialty and temporal trends. Patients Utilising key radiology phrases to identify scans reporting potential AI, we identified 4,097 individuals from 479,945 scan reports (2015-19). Main Outcome Measures Prevalence of AI and referral rates Results Overall, AI lesions were identified in 1.2% of scans. They were more prevalent in abdomen CT and MRI scans (3.0% and 0.6%, respectively). Scans performed increased 7.7% year-on-year from 2015-19, with a more pronounced rise in the number with AI lesions (14.7% pa). Only 394/4097 patients (9.6%) had a documented endocrinology referral code within 90 days, with medical (11.8%) more likely to refer than surgical (7.2%) specialties (p&lt;0.001). Despite prevalence increasing with age, older patients were less likely to be referred (p&lt;0.001). Conclusions While overall AI prevalence appeared low, scan numbers are large and rising; the number with identified AI are increasing still further. The poor AI referral rates, even in centres such as ours where dedicated AI multi-disciplinary team meetings and digital management systems are used, highlights the need for new streamlined, clinically-effective systems and processes to appropriately manage the AI workload.

Specialist palliative care teams and characteristics related to referral rate: a national cross-sectional survey among hospitals in the Netherlands

Background Specialist palliative care teams (SPCTs) in hospitals improve quality of life and satisfaction with care for patients with advanced disease. However, referrals to SPCTs are often limited. To identify areas for improvement of SPCTs’ service penetration, we explored the characteristics and level of integration of palliative care programmes and SPCTs in Dutch hospitals and we assessed the relation between these characteristics and specialist palliative care referral rates. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a national cross-sectional survey conducted among hospitals in the Netherlands from March through May 2018. For this survey, a previously developed online questionnaire, containing 6 consensus-based integration indicators, was sent to palliative care programme leaders in all 78 hospitals. For referral rate we calculated the number of annual inpatient referrals to the SPCT as a percentage of the number of total annual hospital admissions. Referral rate was dichotomized into high (≥ third quartile) and low (< third quartile). Characteristics of SPCTs with high and low referral rate were compared using univariate analyses. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results In total, 63 hospitals (81%) participated in the survey, of which 62 had an operational SPCT. The palliative care programmes of these hospitals consisted of inpatient consultation services (94%), interdisciplinary staffing (61%), outpatient clinics (45%), dedicated acute care beds (21%) and community-based palliative care (27%). The median referral rate was 0.56% (IQR 0.23–1.0%), ranging from 0 to 3.7%. Comparing SPCTs with high referral rate (≥1%, n = 17) and low referral rate (< 1%, n = 45) showed significant differences for SPCTs’ years of existence, staffing, their level of education, participation in other departments’ team meetings, provision of education and conducting research. With regard to integration, significant differences were found for the presence of outpatient clinics and timing of referrals. Conclusion In the Netherlands, palliative care programmes and specialist palliative care teams in hospitals vary in their level of integration and development, with more mature teams showing higher referral rates. Appropriate staffing, dedicated outpatient clinics, education and research appear means to improve service penetration and timing of referral for patients with advanced diseases.

SP8.1.3 Primary care practitioners have a high level of satisfaction with the current breast referral pathway but the majority would support a change to patient self-referral

Aims Currently, patients must consult with a primary care practitioner (PCP) prior to being referred to specialist breast services. A change to patient self-referral would arguably reduce primary care workload, improve access for patients, and allow breast units to allocate resources more appropriately; no data currently supports this. This study aims to explore PCP’s views on breast referral, evaluate the community breast workload, and to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on referral rates. Methods An electronic survey was sent out to PCPs in South West England via two electronic newsletters. Participants were asked: their role and gender, their level of confidence surrounding breast care, details surrounding their breast workload, how they felt COVID-19 had affected their referral rates, their level of satisfaction with the current pathway, and their opinions on a potential change to patient self-referral. Results 79 responses were received. PCPs estimated that 7.0% (median) of their total consultations were regarding a breast-related issue and that COVID-19 had not had a significant impact on the rate of referral to breast units (P = 0.75). 84.8% of PCPs had a high level of satisfaction with the current referral pathway. Whilst 74.5% felt a change to patient self-referral would benefit patients and primary care services, their free text comments highlighted some of their reservations. Conclusions PCPs have a high level of satisfaction with the current breast referral pathway, but the majority would be open to a change to patient self-referral to specialist breast units.

Improving referrals to survivorship: A patient-driven initiative.

44 Background: Patients often feel lost in the transition from cancer patient to survivor. As cancer treatment improves, the number of survivors in the US is expected to approach 22 million by the year 2029. Smaller increases in the MD workforce coupled with long-term effects of new treatments necessitate the creation survivorship clinics led by advanced practice providers (APP) who are disease-specialized and specifically trained to manage unique survivor needs. Although the institutions Survivorship program was established more than a decade ago, the average referral rate to the program is only 30%. Given the high levels of patient satisfaction with the program, we sought to understand and address clinician awareness and referral obstacles. Methods: Based on patient input, members of our Patient & Family Advisory Council for Quality (PFACQ) put forth a proposal aimed at increasing referrals to the Survivorship program. A multidisciplinary working group comprising patients, clinicians, administrators and process engineers was assembled. Process Improvement training was conducted, and a primary goal was developed: increase Survivorship referrals by 25%. Central to the approach was engagement with referring physicians and APPs on a service-by-service basis. A four-question survey was developed to address timing of initial discussion, challenges to referring, knowledge of visit elements, and materials needed to support referrals. A customized ‘roadshow’ presentation was created and delivered by a PFACQ member at a faculty meeting. Highlights included: the importance of Survivorship care to patients and details of the visit, survey responses, and additional faculty discussion and input. Results: Four roadshows were completed from August 2020-June 2021: Gynecologic Surgery, Endocrine, Breast Medicine and Lymphoma. Based on survey responses and dialogue with providers, new material to support patient discussions and education have been developed: a patient-facing brochure, clinician- & patient-facing video, and clinician talking points. Methods to facilitate identifying eligible patients were also discussed, as well as automatic referrals to Survivorship for selected services. Data reveal a significant increase in referral rates from GYN and Endocrine services (follow up > 6 months) of 63% and 228%, respectively. (Breast Medicine and Lymphoma with shorter follow up will be reported.) Engagement with other services is underway. Conclusions: Results have exceeded the goal of increasing referral rates to the program. This process suggests that ongoing engagement with referring clinicians is essential to achieving and maintaining higher referral rates. The patient voice throughout this process has been a powerful tool in raising clinician awareness of their experiences and expectations for comprehensive follow up care, which can be delivered on a greater scale by survivorship providers.