[Referring process in family medicine--contribution assessment].
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to follow and analyze patient referrals from general practice (GP) to diagnostic procedures and specialist consultations. Data on the kinds of diagnostic procedures, specialist consultations and requests for referrals were collected. Specific aim was to assess the contribution of referring for definitive diagnosis and to compare the frequency and contribution of first and repeat consultations.


METHODS
This prospective study was conducted in the course of one month at six GP practices (three urban and one rural practice in inland area, and one urban and one rural practice in coastal area of Croatia). Patient sociodemographic data (age and sex), referral request (by patient, GP, GP and specialist in agreement, specialist only) and kind of visit (first, follow-up) were collected. The contribution of referrals was assessed by GPs using modified Likert's scale (1-markedly significant, 2-significant, 3-undetermined, 4-small and 5-insignificant). On comparison of frequencies chi square test was used. Statistical analyses were done by use of licensed software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA).


RESULTS
During one month, 1815 patients were referred, 979 for diagnostic procedures and 836 for specialist consultation (mean age 55.25 +/- 19.70; male 56.30 +/- 19.10, female 54.50 +/- 20.30). Most frequent diagnostic procedures requested were biochemical laboratory in primary health care setting (n = 331; 33.41%) and secondary care (n =1 18; 12.05%), basic radiology (n=106; 10.83%), ultrasonography (n=87; 8.80%) and microbiological laboratory (n = 68; 6.95%). The contribution of diagnostic procedures was mostly assessed as significant (54.84%). When GP and specialist indicated diagnostic procedure concordantly, its contribution was mostly assessed as significant (61.90%) and markedly significant (10.12%). Specialist consultations were used as follows: physical medicine in 131 (19%), surgeon in 90 (13%) and psychiatrist in 69 (10%) patients from inland area, cardiologist in 53 (37%), psychiatrist in 17 (12%) and oncologist in 12 (8%) patients from coastal area. Both in rural and urban practices in inland and coastal area surgeon consultations were assessed as markedly significant. Urban GPs assessed the contribution of first and follow-up check ups as undetermined or small more often than rural GPs (first check ups Xchi =21.66; P<0.0001; follow-up check ups chi2 = 196.38; P < 0.0001). Rural GPs assessed the contribution of first check ups more often as undetermined or small than significant (chi2 = 12.02; P = 0.0005), with the same tendency recorded for follow-up check ups (Xchi =32.01; P < 0.0001).


CONCLUSIONS
GP should maintain the gatekeeping role to assure good quality of care and rationality in using available resources. Cooperation between GPs and specialists is essential to achieve good quality of care. GPs should restore role in indicating follow-up check ups.
Nekić
Venija Cerovecki
VC
Katedra za obiteljsku medicinu, Skola narodnog zdravlja Andrija Stampar, Medicinski fakultet Sveucilista u Zagrebu, Zagreb. venija.cerovecki@mef.hr
Vrdoljak
Davorka
D
Marković
Biserka Bergman
BB
Kern
Josipa
J
Katić
Milica
M
Adzić
Zlata Ozvacić
ZO
Petricek
Goranka
G
Kranjcević
Ksenija
K
Vucak
Jasna
J
Ivezi'c
Dragica Lalic
DL
D017523:Croatia; D005194:Family Practice; D005260:Female; D020793:Gatekeeping; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D019035:Rural Health Services; D019037:Urban Health Services