Archivos espanoles de urologia · 2015
[High resolution for all in the clinics área of a Urology Department].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Páez Álvaro, Molina Roberto, González Natalia
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of a one-stop clinic in terms of proportion of diagnostic-therapeutic orientation during 2013.
METHODS: All patients were referred from primary care facilities in the district of Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (population 221.705). Previously, referral protocols were agreed. Seven senior urologists participated. 6674 referrals (January-December 2013) were eligible.
RESULTS: 4534 referrals (4535/6674, 68%) were eventually evaluable. Patients taking advantage of the one-stop format were significantly younger than those needing extra consultations (chi2<0,001). Overall, reasons for consultation clearly affected the feasibility of the one-stop approach (chi2<0.001), the one-stop policy being substantiated in most consultations due to subfertility (89.4%), male sexual dysfunction (89.2%), testicular complains (88.3%) and other male genital complains (80.3%). On the contrary, extra consultations were the rule for degenerative diseases of the urinary tract (45%), malignancy (57%) and renal colic pain or urinary lithiasis (63.2%). No relationships could be identified between the referral centre and the feasibility of the one-stop approach (p=ns). The multivariate analysis confirmed the independent effect of the health problem (p<0.001) and patient age (p<0002) on the chances of having a successful one-stop approach.
CONCLUSIONS: a one-stop philosophy should be the standard for all patients in urology clinics.
METHODS: All patients were referred from primary care facilities in the district of Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (population 221.705). Previously, referral protocols were agreed. Seven senior urologists participated. 6674 referrals (January-December 2013) were eligible.
RESULTS: 4534 referrals (4535/6674, 68%) were eventually evaluable. Patients taking advantage of the one-stop format were significantly younger than those needing extra consultations (chi2<0,001). Overall, reasons for consultation clearly affected the feasibility of the one-stop approach (chi2<0.001), the one-stop policy being substantiated in most consultations due to subfertility (89.4%), male sexual dysfunction (89.2%), testicular complains (88.3%) and other male genital complains (80.3%). On the contrary, extra consultations were the rule for degenerative diseases of the urinary tract (45%), malignancy (57%) and renal colic pain or urinary lithiasis (63.2%). No relationships could be identified between the referral centre and the feasibility of the one-stop approach (p=ns). The multivariate analysis confirmed the independent effect of the health problem (p<0.001) and patient age (p<0002) on the chances of having a successful one-stop approach.
CONCLUSIONS: a one-stop philosophy should be the standard for all patients in urology clinics.