BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are commonly referred to specialist clinics. Repeated referrals suggest unmet patient need and inefficient use of resources. OBJECTIVES: How often does this happen, who are the patients and how are they referred? METHODS: The design of the study is a case-control survey. The setting of the study is five general practices in Scotland, UK. The cases were 193 adults with three or more referrals over 5 years, at least two of which resulted in a diagnosis of MUS. The controls were (i) patients referred only once over 5 years and (ii) patients with three or more referrals with symptoms always diagnosed as medically explained. The measures of the study are SF-12 physical and mental component summaries; symptom count; and number of referrals, number of different GPs who had referred and number of specialist follow-up appointments. RESULTS: A total of 1.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.2%] of patients had repeated (median 3, range 2-6) referrals with MUS. Compared to infrequently referred controls, they were older and more likely to be female, living alone and unemployed. Compared to controls with medically explained symptoms, their health status was comparable or worse: odds ratio for SF-12 physical component summary<40, 1.2 (95% CI 0.72-2.0); SF-12 mental component summary<40, 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-3.0); reporting eight or more physical symptoms, 2.2 (95% CI 1.2-3.8). They were referred by more GPs and received less specialist follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of primary care patients are repeatedly referred to specialist clinics where they receive multiple diagnoses of MUS. The needs of these patients and how they are managed merits greater attention.
BACKGROUND:Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are commonly referred to specialist clinics. Repeated referrals suggest unmet patient need and inefficient use of resources. OBJECTIVES: How often does this happen, who are the patients and how are they referred? METHODS: The design of the study is a case-control survey. The setting of the study is five general practices in Scotland, UK. The cases were 193 adults with three or more referrals over 5 years, at least two of which resulted in a diagnosis of MUS. The controls were (i) patients referred only once over 5 years and (ii) patients with three or more referrals with symptoms always diagnosed as medically explained. The measures of the study are SF-12 physical and mental component summaries; symptom count; and number of referrals, number of different GPs who had referred and number of specialist follow-up appointments. RESULTS: A total of 1.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.2%] of patients had repeated (median 3, range 2-6) referrals with MUS. Compared to infrequently referred controls, they were older and more likely to be female, living alone and unemployed. Compared to controls with medically explained symptoms, their health status was comparable or worse: odds ratio for SF-12 physical component summary<40, 1.2 (95% CI 0.72-2.0); SF-12 mental component summary<40, 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-3.0); reporting eight or more physical symptoms, 2.2 (95% CI 1.2-3.8). They were referred by more GPs and received less specialist follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of primary care patients are repeatedly referred to specialist clinics where they receive multiple diagnoses of MUS. The needs of these patients and how they are managed merits greater attention.
Authors: Azucena Maribel Rodriguez González; José Manuel Ramírez Aranda; Homero de Los Santos Reséndiz; María Yolanda Lara Duarte; Santiago Oscar Pazaran Zanella; Jafet Felipe Méndez López; Issa Gil Alfaro; Félix Gilberto Islas Ruz; Gloria Navarrete Floriano; Edith Guillen Salomón; Obdulia Texon Fernández; Silvia Cruz Duarte; Juan Carlos Romo Salazar; Claudia Elsa Pérez Ruiz; Sara de Jesús López Salas; Lizbeth Benítez Amaya; Javier Nahum Zapata Gallardo Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) Date: 2016-09-30
Authors: Marianne Rosendal; Tim C Olde Hartman; Aase Aamland; Henriette van der Horst; Peter Lucassen; Anna Budtz-Lilly; Christopher Burton Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Anne Weiland; Rianne E Van de Kraats; Annette H Blankenstein; Jan L C M Van Saase; Henk T Van der Molen; Wichor M Bramer; Alexandra M Van Dulmen; Lidia R Arends Journal: Perspect Med Educ Date: 2012-09-27
Authors: Severin Hennemann; Katja Böhme; Harald Baumeister; Eileen Bendig; Maria Kleinstäuber; David Daniel Ebert; Michael Witthöft Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dominic Dougall; Anthony Johnson; Kimberley Goldsmith; Michael Sharpe; Brian Angus; Trudie Chalder; Peter White Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.006