Postgrad Med J

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Postgraduate Medical Journal 2006;82:465-467; doi:10.1136/pgmj.2005.043547
Copyright © 2006 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bromage, S J
Right arrow Articles by Pearce, I
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bromage, S J
Right arrow Articles by Pearce, I

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Outpatient follow up appointments; Are we using the resources effectively?

S J Bromage , R D Napier-Hemy , S R Payne , I Pearce

Department of Urology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
MrS J Bromage
Department of Urology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; sjbromage{at}doctors.org.uk

Objective: British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) guidelines and government initiatives have put pressure on the effective use of outpatient resources. Follow up appointments need to be carefully managed to ensure efficient use of available resources. The aim of this study was to audit outpatient follow up service with particular attention to the appropriateness of the appointments made.

Methods: All patients attending a general urology clinic were assessed by a form completed for each individual appointment. The source of the appointment and the time interval was recorded and each follow up appointment was judged to be either appropriate or inappropriate by the person giving the consultation. For those deemed to be inappropriate, justification was sought and the notes independently reviewed by a different clinician to verify this categorisation.

Results: Of 164 appointments made, 143 patients attended for follow up. A total of 131 appointments were considered to be appropriate (92%) with only 12 deemed by the consulting clinician to be inappropriate (8%). The commonest cause for an inappropriate appointment was failure to appreciate that follow up had already been arranged for a different date. There was no correlation between the source of the referral and an inappropriate referral.

Conclusion: This audit suggests an effective use of the outpatient follow up resource with respect to the appropriateness and timing of follow up consultations. Other areas of resource management such as default rates should be investigated in an attempt to improve the efficiency of a service.


Keywords: outpatient; follow up; appointments; resources







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine