Miranda Pallan1, John Linnane, Sam Ramaiah. 1. Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT. mirandashah@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care services traditionally offered in a secondary setting are increasingly being offered in a primary setting. There has been little assessment of quality and efficiency of diagnostic services such as ultrasound delivered in primary settings and no studies have looked at independently provided services. AIMS: To assess the benefits and disadvantages of a radiographer delivered, primary care-based mobile diagnostic ultrasound service by comparing it to an NHS Trust diagnostic ultrasound service. DESIGN: A retrospective, comparative study. SETTING: A primary care area in the West Midlands. METHOD: Random samples of 200 and 193 adult patients who underwent diagnostic ultrasound in 2001/2002 with the community and NHS Trust services respectively, and all GP principals in the area were identified. Patient access (including wait for appointments), patient and GP satisfaction, clinical quality of services, and cost-effectiveness were assessed by postal questionnaires, interviews, review of stored ultrasound images, patient record review and collection of data on unit costs. RESULTS: Mean wait for an appointment was 17.44 (15.85-19.02) and 44.53 days (38.83-50.23) for the community and NHS Trust services respectively. Response rates from the community and hospital patient groups were 52.9 percent and 44.6 percent, respectively. Demographic characteristics of the two groups of respondents did not differ significantly, therefore justifying comparison between the two groups of respondents. High proportions of patients from both services reported time and location of appointment as convenient. Access to secondary care following an abnormal ultrasound was not systematically different for the services. Patients were highly satisfied with both services. GPs were markedly less satisfied with the NHS Trust service compared to the community service. Quality of stored ultrasound images and reports were comparable for the services. Cost per abnormality detected was higher for the community service (107.69 pound sterling compared to 77.35 pound sterling for the NHS Trust service, not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: The community diagnostic ultrasound service offers reduced waiting times compared to the NHS Trust service, and is of comparable quality. This benefit, together with high patient and GP satisfaction levels, may justify the possible reduced cost-effectiveness of the service compared to the NHS Trust service.
BACKGROUND: Health care services traditionally offered in a secondary setting are increasingly being offered in a primary setting. There has been little assessment of quality and efficiency of diagnostic services such as ultrasound delivered in primary settings and no studies have looked at independently provided services. AIMS: To assess the benefits and disadvantages of a radiographer delivered, primary care-based mobile diagnostic ultrasound service by comparing it to an NHS Trust diagnostic ultrasound service. DESIGN: A retrospective, comparative study. SETTING: A primary care area in the West Midlands. METHOD: Random samples of 200 and 193 adult patients who underwent diagnostic ultrasound in 2001/2002 with the community and NHS Trust services respectively, and all GP principals in the area were identified. Patient access (including wait for appointments), patient and GP satisfaction, clinical quality of services, and cost-effectiveness were assessed by postal questionnaires, interviews, review of stored ultrasound images, patient record review and collection of data on unit costs. RESULTS: Mean wait for an appointment was 17.44 (15.85-19.02) and 44.53 days (38.83-50.23) for the community and NHS Trust services respectively. Response rates from the community and hospital patient groups were 52.9 percent and 44.6 percent, respectively. Demographic characteristics of the two groups of respondents did not differ significantly, therefore justifying comparison between the two groups of respondents. High proportions of patients from both services reported time and location of appointment as convenient. Access to secondary care following an abnormal ultrasound was not systematically different for the services. Patients were highly satisfied with both services. GPs were markedly less satisfied with the NHS Trust service compared to the community service. Quality of stored ultrasound images and reports were comparable for the services. Cost per abnormality detected was higher for the community service (107.69 pound sterling compared to 77.35 pound sterling for the NHS Trust service, not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: The community diagnostic ultrasound service offers reduced waiting times compared to the NHS Trust service, and is of comparable quality. This benefit, together with high patient and GP satisfaction levels, may justify the possible reduced cost-effectiveness of the service compared to the NHS Trust service.