Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21050488›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2010

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

Lesley A Stainkey, Isaac A Seidl, Andrew J Johnson, Gladys E Tulloch, Tilley Pain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. How the Internet influences the relationship between outpatients and gastroenterologists: A multicenter study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Towards establishing consistency in triage in a tertiary specialty.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lesley A StainkeyTownsville General Practice Network, PO Box 7780, Garbutt BC, QLD 4814, Australia.
Isaac A Seidl
Andrew J Johnson
Gladys E Tulloch
Tilley Pain

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 PROBLEM: A 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 HAPPENED: In 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. LEARNINGS: Since 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.

Indexed as

Waiting ListsAppointments and SchedulesAustraliaFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Plan ImplementationHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, PublicHumansInterprofessional RelationsMalePatient SatisfactionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Program DevelopmentProgram EvaluationQuality Control

Identifiers

PMID21050488
PMCPMC2991304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.