Inappropriate admissions: thoughts of patients and referring doctors.
Research on inappropriate hospital admissions has tended to neglect the views of the referring doctors and the patients. In this study, the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol was applied to a random sample of 102 emergency medical admissions. The patients and doctors were then presented with a list of possible alternatives to admission that might have been used at the point of referral. Case notes were available for 88 patients. As judged by these, 28% of admissions were inappropriate, the commonest reason being the potential for treatment or tests to have been performed as outpatient procedures; next commonest was the possibility of lower level care. The response rate to the questionnaires was about two-thirds, for both doctors and patients. Of the general practitioners and casualty doctors who responded, 60% specified alternatives to admission that they would have considered, and the equivalent figure for patients was 70%. For both groups the major preferences were same-day outpatient assessment and admission to a community hospital. Referring doctors and patients, in this survey, favoured alternatives to acute medical care in proportions much higher than that of supposedly inappropriate admission.
Campbell
J
J
Bishop's Castle Medical Practice, Schoolhouse Lane, Bishop's Castle, Shropshire SY9 5BP, UK. jpcam@totalise.co.uk
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003657:Decision Making; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000592:standards; D004739:England; D006300:Health Services Misuse; D006801:Humans; D007297:Inpatients / Q000523:psychology; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000523:psychology*; D010343:Patient Admission / Q000592:standards*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010821:Physicians, Family / Q000523:psychology*; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards