OBJECTIVE: To analyse the urgent consultations sent by doctors to a Dermatology Department for origin, reason for referral, clinical compliance, suspected diagnosis, concordance with the dermatologist's diagnosis and justification of the urgent referral. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: The information was gathered in the tertiary specialist Dermatology service of Navarra, which covers the whole population. PARTICIPANTS: Of the total (595) number of urgent forms received by the service in 1995, 505 were analysed and contrasted with the dermatological clinical history. Each patient corresponded to a form. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The following was analysed: age, sex, origin of referral, reason for referral, clinical compliance, suspected diagnosis, concordance with the dermatologist's diagnosis and justification of the urgent referral. Most letters came from Health Centres (48.5%). The most commonly alleged reason for referral was diagnostic help (51.2%). There was good clinical compliance only in the notes coming from hospital Casualty Departments (78.7%). CONCLUSIONS: There were major deficiencies in all the points under analysis, with no significant differences as to origin, except for hospital Casualty, which had better clinical compliance and whose referrals were more justified.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the urgent consultations sent by doctors to a Dermatology Department for origin, reason for referral, clinical compliance, suspected diagnosis, concordance with the dermatologist's diagnosis and justification of the urgent referral. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: The information was gathered in the tertiary specialist Dermatology service of Navarra, which covers the whole population. PARTICIPANTS: Of the total (595) number of urgent forms received by the service in 1995, 505 were analysed and contrasted with the dermatological clinical history. Each patient corresponded to a form. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The following was analysed: age, sex, origin of referral, reason for referral, clinical compliance, suspected diagnosis, concordance with the dermatologist's diagnosis and justification of the urgent referral. Most letters came from Health Centres (48.5%). The most commonly alleged reason for referral was diagnostic help (51.2%). There was good clinical compliance only in the notes coming from hospital Casualty Departments (78.7%). CONCLUSIONS: There were major deficiencies in all the points under analysis, with no significant differences as to origin, except for hospital Casualty, which had better clinical compliance and whose referrals were more justified.