RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: 90% of cases of acute low back pain have no specific underlying cause. International guidelines are available to help identify those individuals who require specialized care. However, in our country, there is a limited emphasis on primary healthcare, with the primary focus on hospital-based care. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic resources utilized in the initial care of patients experiencing low back pain at their first consultation with a specialist physician. METHODS: Descriptive and cross-sectional study, with prospective data collection through a questionnaire administered to patients experiencing low back pain during their first visit to a specialist's office. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were included, with an average age of 53 years; 50% sought medical attention for chronic pain. Informal referrals were associated with the referring physician's specialty (non-orthopedic), patients with a higher number of emergency department visits, and longer waiting times to obtain the consultation; 52% of patients arrived with at least one complementary study. CONCLUSION: Most of the referrals were appropriate; however, informal referrals were more common. Only 1/5 of the patients underwent an physical examination, and less than 30% of those with red flag symptoms presented with suitable complementary studies. The median waiting time for the consultation was 24 days.
Introducción: El 90% de las lumbalgias agudas son de causa inespecífica. Existen guías internacionales que permiten identificar a aquellos pacientes que requieren atención especializada. En nuestro país la orientación a la atención primaria de la salud es escasa, centrada principalmente en la atención en los hospitales. El objetivo del presente estudio fue describir los recursos de salud, diagnósticos y terapéuticos, utilizados en la atención inicial de pacientes con dolor lumbar que acuden a la consulta del médico especialista Métodos: Estudio descriptivo y transversal, con recolección prospectiva de los datos a través de un cuestionario destinado a pacientes con dolor lumbar que acuden por primera vez a la consulta especializada. Resultados: Se incluyeron 44 pacientes, edad media 53 años; 50% concurrió por dolor crónico. La derivación informal se asoció con: especialidad de derivación (no traumatólogo), pacientes con mayor número de consultas a guardia y mayor demora en obtener la consulta. El 52% concurrió con al menos un estudio complementario. Conclusión: La mayor parte de las derivaciones fueron correctas, sin embargo, predominó la derivación informal. Solo 1/5 de los pacientes fue examinado y menos del 30% de los pacientes con banderas rojas acudió con estudios complementarios adecuados. La mediana del tiempo de espera para la consulta fue 24 días.
Asunto(s)
Dolor de la Región Lumbar , Derivación y Consulta , Humanos , Derivación y Consulta/estadística & datos numéricos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapia , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/diagnóstico , Estudios Transversales , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Femenino , Argentina , Adulto , Estudios Prospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Anciano , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: More than 50% of Canadian adult patients wait longer than four weeks to see a specialist after referral from primary care. Access to accurate wait time information may help primary care physicians choose the timeliest specialist to address a patient's specific needs. We conducted a mixed-methods study to assess if primary to specialist care wait times can be extracted from electronic medical records (EMR), analyzed the wait time information, and used focus groups and interviews to assess the potential clinical utility of the wait time information. METHODS: Two family practices were recruited to examine primary care physician to specialist wait times between January 2016 and December 2017, using EMR data. The primary outcome was the median wait time from physician referral to specialist appointment for each specialty service. Secondary outcomes included the physician and patient characteristics associated with wait times as well as qualitative analyses of physician interviews about the resulting wait time reports. RESULTS: Wait time data can be extracted from the primary care EMR and converted to a report format for family physicians and specialists to review. After data cleaning, there were 7141 referrals included from 4967 unique patients. The 5 most common specialties referred to were Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Ear Nose and Throat, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology. Half of the patients were seen by a specialist within 42 days, 75% seen within 80 days and all patients within 760 days. There were significant differences in wait times by specialty, for younger patients, and those with urgently labelled medical situations. Overall, wait time reports were perceived by clinicians to be important since they could help family physicians decide how to triage referrals and might lead to system improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Wait time information from primary to specialist care can aid in decision-making around specialist referrals, identify bottlenecks, and help with system planning. This mixed method study is a starting point to review the importance of providing wait time data for both family physicians, specialists and local health systems. Future work can be directed towards developing wait time reporting functionality and evaluating if wait time information will help increase system efficiency and/or improve provider and patient satisfaction.