Health Services Research, Economics and Outcomes Research: 52. Reducing New-to-Follow-up Ratios: No More Easy Solutions

S. Selvan,E. Price,D. Collins,L. Williamson,M. Lahiri,G.-G. Teng,T.-C. Lau,A. Mak,S. Vasoo,A. Lateef,M.-L. Boey,D.-R. Koh,A. Lim,A. Abdelhamid,J. Mooney,A. Walker,G. Barton,D. G. Scott,R. Watts,S. J. Griffin,D. L. Scott,S. Steer,D. Wallis,N. McHugh,M. Bukhari,G. Kitas,P. Shah,M. Cox,A. Nye,P. Jones,H. John,N. Erb,A. Bamji,R. Fitzpatrick,I. P. Keary,B. Ellis,U. Farooq,G. Xiong,L. Hsiang chuang,G. Zhang,L. Perry,J. King,L. Goh,K. Orourke,C. Laversuch,R. Cherry,A. Cockcroft,D. Hutchinson,S. Buchan,J. L. Marks,R. G. Hull,M. Fletcher,J. M. Ledingham
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ker040
2011-01-01
Rheumatology
Abstract:Background: Current NICE guidelines suggest monthly follow up appointments for the monitoring of newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients. This is at variance with the current U.K. health-economic pressures for a year on year reduction in new to follow up ratios. Methods: We reviewed all new patient referrals to a DGH rheumatology department over a one month period and collated information on referral diagnosis, final diagnosis and outcomes, in particular discharge rates. Results: There were 154 new patients referred in May 2010. 96 (62%) were via the Choose & Book (C&B) system and 58 (38%) were traditional paper referrals (38 GP referrals (66%) and 20 consultant to consultant referrals (34%)). There were 14 DNAs in total (8 non-C&B (6%) and 6 C&B (4%)). Of the 140 patients who attended their first rheumatology appointment, 80 (57%) were discharged at their first attendance, 6 (4%) had one follow up visit and the remaining 54 (34%) required more than 1 follow up. The majority of these had potentially chronic conditions (rheumatoid arthritis 7, psoriatic arthritis 6, undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis 11, juvenile idiopathic arthritis 2, relapsing polychondritis 2, ankylosing spondylitis 5, gout 5, Sjogren’s 1, Paget’s 1, polymyalgia rheumatica 2, osteoporosis 2, Behcet’s 1, vasculitis 2, systemic lupus erythematosus 1). We compared the final diagnoses following rheumatology review with the diagnosis suggested in the referral letter. No diagnosis was suggested by the referring clinician (GP or consultant) in 51 (36%) of referrals. Of the remaining 89 the original diagnosis suggested was confirmed in 45/59 (76%) of the C&B patients and 25/30 (83%) of the non-C&B patients. Of the non-C&B patients the original diagnosis was confirmed in 19/21 (90%) of GP initiated referrals and 6/9 (67%) of the consultant initiated referrals. In total the suggested diagnosis was confirmed in 70/89 (79%) referrals where a diagnosis was offered. Conclusions: Of the patients requiring ongoing follow up, the majority (89%) had a potentially chronic condition requiring ongoing rheumatological care and immunomodulatory therapy. On the basis of this data, there appears to be very little scope for further reducing follow up appointments and improving new to follow up ratios. Comparison with previous observational studies shows that the proportion of patients requiring long term follow up has not changed significantly in the last 20 years, but the number of patients discharged at their first clinic visit has increased, with very few patients now being brought back for a single follow up appointment. The referring diagnosis was only confirmed in 50% of patients overall, with no referral diagnosis suggested in 35%. On this basis, accurate triage of referral letters is not possible. In conclusion there is no easy way to further improve new to follow up ratios or reduce referrals seen without a significant change in the style of referral and management of chronic rheumatic diseases. Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?