OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the information content in referrals for macromastia and its importance to patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised referrals regarding 98 consecutive patients referred in a 6-month period from 1st of July 2004 to 31st of December 2004. Furthermore, the subsequent preliminary examinations were included in the study (n=55). Referrals were evaluated using a scale ranging from 0 to 7 points where points were given for relevant anamnestic and objective information. Evaluations were also made regarding the need to obtain supplementary information from the referring physician before the referrals could be managed by the department's visitator. RESULTS: Only a single referral did not contain either subjective or objective information. In 13% of cases, the level of information was criticisably low. The median score was 3.2 points. The department had to obtain additional information from the referring physician in 22% of cases in order to permit visitation of the patient. In the cases where additional information had to be obtained, visitation time was up to 21 days in contrast to one day. There was no measurable effect of a campaign to raise the quality and level of information given in the referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Many referrals for macromastia had an insufficient information level for the hospital's visitation. Having to obtain additional information causes an increased workload for the department and the referring physician and results in treatment delay.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the information content in referrals for macromastia and its importance to patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised referrals regarding 98 consecutive patients referred in a 6-month period from 1st of July 2004 to 31st of December 2004. Furthermore, the subsequent preliminary examinations were included in the study (n=55). Referrals were evaluated using a scale ranging from 0 to 7 points where points were given for relevant anamnestic and objective information. Evaluations were also made regarding the need to obtain supplementary information from the referring physician before the referrals could be managed by the department's visitator. RESULTS: Only a single referral did not contain either subjective or objective information. In 13% of cases, the level of information was criticisably low. The median score was 3.2 points. The department had to obtain additional information from the referring physician in 22% of cases in order to permit visitation of the patient. In the cases where additional information had to be obtained, visitation time was up to 21 days in contrast to one day. There was no measurable effect of a campaign to raise the quality and level of information given in the referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Many referrals for macromastia had an insufficient information level for the hospital's visitation. Having to obtain additional information causes an increased workload for the department and the referring physician and results in treatment delay.
Authors: Sasha Gulati; Asgeir S Jakola; Ole Solheim; Sindre Gabrielsen; Pål A Godø; Bjørn Skogstad; Oystein P Nygaard Journal: J Man Manip Ther Date: 2012-02