Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · 2019
Priority and appropriateness of upper endoscopy out-patient referrals: Two-period comparison in an open-access unit.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Meggio Alberto, Mariotti Giuliano, Gentilini Maria, de Pretis Giovanni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the early 2000s we introduced a prioritization model for referrals based on involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists.
AIMS: Assess the application of that model of prioritisation, comparing gastroscopies performed 8 years apart, with respect to priority level, appropriateness and relevant endoscopic findings (REFs).
METHODS: The studies included 247 and 354 out-patients, who had undergone gastroscopy in 2006 and in 2014, respectively. To reduce interspecialists variability, both studies were performed by the same specialist as investigator.
RESULTS: In both years, most patients were assigned low-priority referral by PCPs (78.6% and 75.1% respectively). The agreement PCPs versus specialist on referral priority was moderate in 2006 (0.60, Landis-Koch scale 0.41-0.60) and high in 2014 (0.81, Landis-Koch scale 0.81-1.00). In both years we observed a similar rate of inappropriateness: 27.5% and 27.1%, respectively. Due to multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) for REF increased when: (i) very high-priority referral versus nopriority referral was indicated (8.813 OR, p = 0.0012), (ii) referral followed the guidelines (9.29 OR, p<0.0001), and (iii) agreement of priority occurred (1.911 OR, p = 0.0308).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted that the issues of low-priority referrals should be addressed in order to discontinue gastroscopy overusing and reduce related operational costs.
AIMS: Assess the application of that model of prioritisation, comparing gastroscopies performed 8 years apart, with respect to priority level, appropriateness and relevant endoscopic findings (REFs).
METHODS: The studies included 247 and 354 out-patients, who had undergone gastroscopy in 2006 and in 2014, respectively. To reduce interspecialists variability, both studies were performed by the same specialist as investigator.
RESULTS: In both years, most patients were assigned low-priority referral by PCPs (78.6% and 75.1% respectively). The agreement PCPs versus specialist on referral priority was moderate in 2006 (0.60, Landis-Koch scale 0.41-0.60) and high in 2014 (0.81, Landis-Koch scale 0.81-1.00). In both years we observed a similar rate of inappropriateness: 27.5% and 27.1%, respectively. Due to multiple logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) for REF increased when: (i) very high-priority referral versus nopriority referral was indicated (8.813 OR, p = 0.0012), (ii) referral followed the guidelines (9.29 OR, p<0.0001), and (iii) agreement of priority occurred (1.911 OR, p = 0.0308).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted that the issues of low-priority referrals should be addressed in order to discontinue gastroscopy overusing and reduce related operational costs.