PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R D Napier-Hemy

Publications and source records attributed to R D Napier-Hemy.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Outpatient follow up appointments; are we using the resources effectively?

OBJECTIVE: British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) guidelines and government initiatives have put pressure on the effective use of outpatient resources. Follow up appointments need to be carefully managed to ensure efficient use of available resources. The aim of this study was to audit outpatient follow up service with particular attention to the appropriateness of the appointments made. METHODS: All patients attending a general urology clinic were assessed by a form completed for each individual appointment. The source of the appointment and the time interval was recorded and each follow up appointment was judged to be either appropriate or inappropriate by the person giving the consultation. For those deemed to be inappropriate, justification was sought and the notes independently reviewed by a different clinician to verify this categorisation. RESULTS: Of 164 appointments made, 143 patients attended for follow up. A total of 131 appointments were considered to be appropriate (92%) with only 12 deemed by the consulting clinician to be inappropriate (8%). The commonest cause for an inappropriate appointment was failure to appreciate that follow up had already been arranged for a different date. There was no correlation between the source of the referral and an inappropriate referral. CONCLUSION: This audit suggests an effective use of the outpatient follow up resource with respect to the appropriateness and timing of follow up consultations. Other areas of resource management such as default rates should be investigated in an attempt to improve the efficiency of a service.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2004

Presumptive coding. A preliminary study of the aggregation of input diagnoses to determine their relevance to clinical governance and urological resourcing.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of a system for coding the reason for urological referral from primary care, using ICD10, and thus enable benchmarking of urological outpatient activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four studies were conducted: (i) A pilot study to aggregate information into a few input diagnosis codes (925 patients); (ii) Validation of the aggregated codes using input diagnoses from a second centre (928 patients); (iii) A prospective study by three urologists to determine the system's generic utility (918 patients); (iv) A study to aggregate the presumptive codes for 2771 patients to gain an insight into the case-mix of patients referred to a general urological service via the outpatient department. RESULTS: The aggregation of input diagnoses from general practice referrals into 36 'presumptive codes' was possible and could be validated. Prospective coding, for 96% of eligible patients, was possible with < 1% of referral diagnoses not being codable. Further aggregation of the data for 2771 patients showed that 31% were referred with urological malignancy whilst 69% had symptoms suggesting benign urological disease. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study of presumptive coding suggests that it is a feasible and valid method of recording the input diagnoses for patients presented to a urological service. The information it provides has relevance for the structuring, benchmarking, resourcing and manpower requirements of that service, essential components for clinical governance. It also has relevance to the prospective collection of patient data for research and audit.

England↗