Assessing Quality of Referrals to a Community-Based Chronic Pain Clinic.

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur Pub Date : 2024-10-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/24740527.2024.2402700
Angela Mailis, Amna Rafiq, Amol Deshpande, S Fatima Lakha
{"title":"Assessing Quality of Referrals to a Community-Based Chronic Pain Clinic.","authors":"Angela Mailis, Amna Rafiq, Amol Deshpande, S Fatima Lakha","doi":"10.1080/24740527.2024.2402700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Because patients with chronic pain are complex, with significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities, referrals to specialty pain clinics are often necessary. The present study explores the quality of information submitted and the profile of referring physicians associated with rejected patient referrals by a community pain clinic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on a series of consecutive new patient referrals rejected by a noninterventional community pain clinic (November 2021-June 2022). Data were collected on the reasons for rejected referrals and physicians responsible for these referrals using the public database of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 120 new referrals made by 99 physicians (88% primary care providers, or PCPs; male : female ratio 1:1.2; 53% Canadian university graduates) were rejected because of inadequate information (62%) or because they were inappropriate (38%). Only 46% of the rejected referrals were resubmitted within a median of 7 days (range 0-96 days) and accepted. Half of the non-resubmitted referrals could have been accepted if the referring provider had sent in the missing information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant number of referrals to our pain clinic (primarily from PCPs) are rejected for mainly avoidable reasons. The process of rejected referrals and resubmissions requires 92 to 126 h of additional staff time/year. Without additional health care resources, our study highlights simple but effective improvements in the referral process that could facilitate patient care, avoid unnecessary delays, and decrease possible sources of patient complaints.</p>","PeriodicalId":53214,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","volume":"8 1","pages":"2402700"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2024.2402700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Because patients with chronic pain are complex, with significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities, referrals to specialty pain clinics are often necessary. The present study explores the quality of information submitted and the profile of referring physicians associated with rejected patient referrals by a community pain clinic.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on a series of consecutive new patient referrals rejected by a noninterventional community pain clinic (November 2021-June 2022). Data were collected on the reasons for rejected referrals and physicians responsible for these referrals using the public database of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Results: During the study period, 120 new referrals made by 99 physicians (88% primary care providers, or PCPs; male : female ratio 1:1.2; 53% Canadian university graduates) were rejected because of inadequate information (62%) or because they were inappropriate (38%). Only 46% of the rejected referrals were resubmitted within a median of 7 days (range 0-96 days) and accepted. Half of the non-resubmitted referrals could have been accepted if the referring provider had sent in the missing information.

Conclusion: A significant number of referrals to our pain clinic (primarily from PCPs) are rejected for mainly avoidable reasons. The process of rejected referrals and resubmissions requires 92 to 126 h of additional staff time/year. Without additional health care resources, our study highlights simple but effective improvements in the referral process that could facilitate patient care, avoid unnecessary delays, and decrease possible sources of patient complaints.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估社区慢性疼痛诊所的转诊质量。
导言:由于慢性疼痛患者病情复杂,合并有严重的内科和精神科疾病,因此往往需要转诊到疼痛专科诊所。本研究探讨了社区疼痛诊所拒绝转诊病人时所提交信息的质量和转诊医生的情况:一项回顾性横断面研究针对一家非介入性社区疼痛诊所(2021 年 11 月至 2022 年 6 月)拒绝的一系列连续新患者转诊进行了研究。研究人员利用安大略内科和外科医生学院的公共数据库收集了转诊被拒的原因和负责这些转诊的医生的数据:在研究期间,99 名医生(88% 为初级保健提供者或初级保健医生;男女比例为 1:1.2;53% 为加拿大大学毕业生)的 120 个新转介病人因信息不足(62%)或不合适(38%)而被拒绝。在被拒绝的转介人中,只有 46% 在中位数 7 天(0-96 天不等)内重新提交并被接受。在未重新提交的转诊病例中,如果转诊医生提交了缺失的信息,有一半的病例本可以被接受:结论:我们疼痛诊所有大量转诊病人(主要来自初级保健医生)被拒,主要原因是可以避免的。处理被拒绝的转诊病人和重新提交转诊病人的过程需要工作人员每年额外花费 92 到 126 小时的时间。在不增加医疗资源的情况下,我们的研究强调了转诊流程中简单而有效的改进措施,这些措施可以促进患者护理、避免不必要的延误并减少患者投诉的可能来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
期刊最新文献
Prospective Preference Assessment for the Psilocybin for Enhanced Analgesia in Chronic nEuropathic PAIN (PEACE-PAIN) Trial. Assessing Quality of Referrals to a Community-Based Chronic Pain Clinic. The Influence of Loneliness on Pain Outcomes for Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Chronic pain experiences of immigrant Indian women in Canada: A photovoice exploration. [Enhancing Chronic Pain Management: Exploring the Essential Contribution of Primary Care Nurses].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1