Tarik Sammour1, Andrew Macleod2, Tim J Chittleborough2, Raaj Chandra2, Susan M Shedda2, Ian A Hastie2, Ian T Jones2,3, Ian P Hayes2,3. 1. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan St, Parkville, VIC, Australia. tarik.sammour@gmail.com. 2. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan St, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Resource limitations are a concern in most modern public hospital systems. The aim of this study is to prospectively quantify the total caseload of a tertiary colorectal surgery unit to identify areas of redundancy. METHODS: Data was collected prospectively at all points of clinical care (outpatient clinic, inpatient referrals, operating theatre and endoscopy) between March 2014 and March 2015 using specifically designed templates. The final data was analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: During the study period, 4012 patient episodes were recorded: 2871 in outpatient clinic, 186 as emergency patient referrals, 541 at colonoscopy and 414 at surgery. The largest component of the caseload was made up primarily of colonoscopy results follow-up, protocol review for previous cancer or polyps and post-operative review. Sixty-eight percent of these episodes did not result in any active intervention such as further tests or surgery. Most new outpatient referrals were undifferentiated, with the most common indications being minor rectal bleeding, non-specific gastrointestinal symptoms, and minor non-bleeding anorectal problems. Of the new referrals, 56 % were booked for a colonoscopy, and only 13.3 % were booked directly for elective surgery. CONCLUSION: A large component of the caseload of a tertiary colorectal surgery unit is made up of post-colonoscopy, post-operative, and surveillance protocol follow-up, with a significant proportion of patients not requiring any active intervention. The majority of new referrals are undifferentiated and result in a low rate of direct booking for operative intervention. Rationalisation of this resource using evidence-based methods could reduce redundancy, workload, and cost.
PURPOSE: Resource limitations are a concern in most modern public hospital systems. The aim of this study is to prospectively quantify the total caseload of a tertiary colorectal surgery unit to identify areas of redundancy. METHODS: Data was collected prospectively at all points of clinical care (outpatient clinic, inpatient referrals, operating theatre and endoscopy) between March 2014 and March 2015 using specifically designed templates. The final data was analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: During the study period, 4012 patient episodes were recorded: 2871 in outpatient clinic, 186 as emergency patient referrals, 541 at colonoscopy and 414 at surgery. The largest component of the caseload was made up primarily of colonoscopy results follow-up, protocol review for previous cancer or polyps and post-operative review. Sixty-eight percent of these episodes did not result in any active intervention such as further tests or surgery. Most new outpatient referrals were undifferentiated, with the most common indications being minor rectal bleeding, non-specific gastrointestinal symptoms, and minor non-bleeding anorectal problems. Of the new referrals, 56 % were booked for a colonoscopy, and only 13.3 % were booked directly for elective surgery. CONCLUSION: A large component of the caseload of a tertiary colorectal surgery unit is made up of post-colonoscopy, post-operative, and surveillance protocol follow-up, with a significant proportion of patients not requiring any active intervention. The majority of new referrals are undifferentiated and result in a low rate of direct booking for operative intervention. Rationalisation of this resource using evidence-based methods could reduce redundancy, workload, and cost.
Authors: Ezekiel Emanuel; Neera Tanden; Stuart Altman; Scott Armstrong; Donald Berwick; François de Brantes; Maura Calsyn; Michael Chernew; John Colmers; David Cutler; Tom Daschle; Paul Egerman; Bob Kocher; Arnold Milstein; Emily Oshima Lee; John D Podesta; Uwe Reinhardt; Meredith Rosenthal; Joshua Sharfstein; Stephen Shortell; Andrew Stern; Peter R Orszag; Topher Spiro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Greg D Sacks; Aaron J Dawes; Marcia M Russell; Anne Y Lin; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Deborah Winograd; Hallie R Chung; James Tomlinson; Areti Tillou; Stephen B Shew; Darryl T Hiyama; H Gill Cryer; F Charles Brunicardi; Jonathan R Hiatt; Clifford Ko Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Ruth Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Clare Wilkinson; Maggie Hendry; Daphne Russell; Ian Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Hasan Al Chalabi; James M O'Riordan; Alex Richardson; Delia Flannery; Katrina O'Connor; Charlotte Stuart; John Larkin; Paul McCormick; Brian Mehigan Journal: Surg Res Pract Date: 2014-05-20