Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background And Objective: After triage assessment, some hospitals refer emergency department (ED) patients with minor chief complaints to off-site clinics. The potential for 2 different referral models introduced in 2 urban hospitals was assessed, as well as the suitability of this measure.
Patients And Method: After triage assessment, patients with minor complaints were identified. ED from Hospital Clínic of Barcelona (HCB) proposed that these patients should be referred to a hospital affiliated off-site clinic, whereas ED from Hospital Mútua de Terrassa (HMT) tried to refer such patients to their primary care setting. Within a year, we assessed on both ED the following items: number of arrivals, percentage of proposed referrals (PR), percentage of accepted referrals (AR), percentage of carried-out referrals (CR: patients who, once discharged, really attended the other setting), and percentage of returned referrals (RR) to the ED, as well as return reasons, and the percentage of returned patients finally admitted. The degree of patient satisfaction was evaluated by means of a telephone survey.
Results: From both ED, 44,764 arrivals and 7,297 (16.3%) PR were registered. The percentage of AR and CR was 94.3% and 75.3%, respectively. The percentage of PR from HMT was higher (18.7% vs 13.1%; p < 0.001), yet HCB obtained a greater percentage of AR (98.9% vs 92%, p < 0.001) and CR (93.7% vs 65%; p < 0.001). The percentage of RR from both ED was 1.5% (2.8% vs 0.4%; p < 0.001). Among returned patients, 12 of them (0.17% respect to AR) were finally admitted. Only 41% of patients who were found to be eligible for direct discharge would have agreed with being referred to another clinical setting, but after the experience, up to 93% of them said they would go through it again. HMT gave referral information to patients faster than HCB (p < 0.05), but HCB got a better model evaluation (p < 0.01), a greater medical complaint solution (p < 0.05), and generated a smaller number of subsequent consultations (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: After a rapid triage assessment, a percentage of patients arriving on EDs may be directly and safely discharged and referred to other clinical settings. This is achieved by both proposed models without additional risks for patients. However, patients feel more satisfied with an hospital-affiliated off-site clinic instead of their primary care setting.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1157/13083876 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!