门诊预约系统对疑似癌症调查等待时间的影响:绝经后出血病例

Beverley A. Lawton , Sally B. Rose , Sue Pullon , James Stanley , Sue Garrett , Peter Sykes , Donna Cormack , Bridget Robson , Fali Langdana , Annette Cooper , Sara K. Filoche
{"title":"门诊预约系统对疑似癌症调查等待时间的影响:绝经后出血病例","authors":"Beverley A. Lawton ,&nbsp;Sally B. Rose ,&nbsp;Sue Pullon ,&nbsp;James Stanley ,&nbsp;Sue Garrett ,&nbsp;Peter Sykes ,&nbsp;Donna Cormack ,&nbsp;Bridget Robson ,&nbsp;Fali Langdana ,&nbsp;Annette Cooper ,&nbsp;Sara K. Filoche","doi":"10.1016/j.cogc.2013.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A 2-week waiting time from primary care referral to first specialist assessment is recommended for patients with symptoms of suspected cancer, such as post-menopausal bleeding (PMB). We compared 2 different booking systems in relation to the observed waiting time for patients with suspected uterine cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were collected concurrently between July 2009 and August 2010, and captured the duration of waiting time from referral to specialist assessment for each woman with PMB. A comparison of 2 outpatient booking systems on waiting times was undertaken for 2 District Health Boards (DHBs) in New Zealand. DHB1 uses a centralized booking system, and DHB2 uses a clinic-based system.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 147 women were included in the timing analysis. At DHB1, 2 of 90 women (2%) were seen within 2 weeks and 61 of 90 women (68%) waited more than 42 days. At DHB2, 24 of 57 women (42%) were seen within 2 weeks and 19 of 57 women (33%) waited more than 42 days. Overall, only 18% of women in this study were seen within the 2-week time-frame and 80 of 147 women (54%) waited more than 42 days from referral to specialist assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this study, a clinic-based booking system was associated with shorter waiting times compared with a centralized booking system in 2 reasonably comparable DHB services. Waiting times were longer than the recommended guidelines, regardless of booking system. Further research is needed to clarify the effects of these different booking systems on waiting times.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100274,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer","volume":"5 2","pages":"Pages 87-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogc.2013.06.001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Outpatient Booking Systems on Waiting Times for Investigation of Suspected Cancer: The Case of Post-Menopausal Bleeding\",\"authors\":\"Beverley A. Lawton ,&nbsp;Sally B. Rose ,&nbsp;Sue Pullon ,&nbsp;James Stanley ,&nbsp;Sue Garrett ,&nbsp;Peter Sykes ,&nbsp;Donna Cormack ,&nbsp;Bridget Robson ,&nbsp;Fali Langdana ,&nbsp;Annette Cooper ,&nbsp;Sara K. Filoche\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogc.2013.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A 2-week waiting time from primary care referral to first specialist assessment is recommended for patients with symptoms of suspected cancer, such as post-menopausal bleeding (PMB). We compared 2 different booking systems in relation to the observed waiting time for patients with suspected uterine cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were collected concurrently between July 2009 and August 2010, and captured the duration of waiting time from referral to specialist assessment for each woman with PMB. A comparison of 2 outpatient booking systems on waiting times was undertaken for 2 District Health Boards (DHBs) in New Zealand. DHB1 uses a centralized booking system, and DHB2 uses a clinic-based system.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 147 women were included in the timing analysis. At DHB1, 2 of 90 women (2%) were seen within 2 weeks and 61 of 90 women (68%) waited more than 42 days. At DHB2, 24 of 57 women (42%) were seen within 2 weeks and 19 of 57 women (33%) waited more than 42 days. Overall, only 18% of women in this study were seen within the 2-week time-frame and 80 of 147 women (54%) waited more than 42 days from referral to specialist assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this study, a clinic-based booking system was associated with shorter waiting times compared with a centralized booking system in 2 reasonably comparable DHB services. Waiting times were longer than the recommended guidelines, regardless of booking system. Further research is needed to clarify the effects of these different booking systems on waiting times.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer\",\"volume\":\"5 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 87-93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cogc.2013.06.001\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212955313000045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ovarian and Other Gynecologic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212955313000045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:对于有疑似癌症症状的患者,如绝经后出血(PMB),推荐从初级保健转诊到首次专家评估的等待时间为2周。我们比较了两种不同的预约系统与观察到的子宫癌患者等待时间的关系。方法收集2009年7月至2010年8月期间的数据,并记录每位PMB妇女从转诊到专家评估的等待时间。对新西兰两个区卫生委员会(dhb)的两种门诊预约系统的等候时间进行了比较。DHB1使用集中预约系统,DHB2使用基于诊所的系统。结果147名妇女被纳入时间分析。在DHB1时,90名妇女中有2名(2%)在2周内就诊,90名妇女中有61名(68%)等待超过42天。在DHB2时,57名妇女中有24名(42%)在2周内就诊,57名妇女中有19名(33%)等待超过42天。总的来说,在这项研究中,只有18%的女性在两周内就诊,147名女性中有80名(54%)从转诊到专家评估等待超过42天。结论:在本研究中,在两种合理可比的DHB服务中,以诊所为基础的预约系统与集中式预约系统相比,等待时间更短。无论采用何种预订系统,等待时间都比建议的指导时间长。需要进一步的研究来阐明这些不同的订票系统对等候时间的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Impact of Outpatient Booking Systems on Waiting Times for Investigation of Suspected Cancer: The Case of Post-Menopausal Bleeding

Background

A 2-week waiting time from primary care referral to first specialist assessment is recommended for patients with symptoms of suspected cancer, such as post-menopausal bleeding (PMB). We compared 2 different booking systems in relation to the observed waiting time for patients with suspected uterine cancer.

Methods

Data were collected concurrently between July 2009 and August 2010, and captured the duration of waiting time from referral to specialist assessment for each woman with PMB. A comparison of 2 outpatient booking systems on waiting times was undertaken for 2 District Health Boards (DHBs) in New Zealand. DHB1 uses a centralized booking system, and DHB2 uses a clinic-based system.

Results

A total of 147 women were included in the timing analysis. At DHB1, 2 of 90 women (2%) were seen within 2 weeks and 61 of 90 women (68%) waited more than 42 days. At DHB2, 24 of 57 women (42%) were seen within 2 weeks and 19 of 57 women (33%) waited more than 42 days. Overall, only 18% of women in this study were seen within the 2-week time-frame and 80 of 147 women (54%) waited more than 42 days from referral to specialist assessment.

Conclusions

In this study, a clinic-based booking system was associated with shorter waiting times compared with a centralized booking system in 2 reasonably comparable DHB services. Waiting times were longer than the recommended guidelines, regardless of booking system. Further research is needed to clarify the effects of these different booking systems on waiting times.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
WITHDRAWN: Epigenetic Pathways Offer Targets for Ovarian Cancer Treatment Table of Contents Editorial Board A Simulation Study of the Factors Influencing the Risk of Intraoperative Slipping Genetic Cancer Ovary
×
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