Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elwyn, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stott, N. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elwyn, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stott, N. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 2, 140-142
© Oxford University Press 1999

Referral for ‘prostatism': developing a ‘performance indicator' for the threshold between primary and secondary care?

Glyn Jones Elwyna,d, Andrew Rixb, Philip Matthewsc and Nigel CH Stottd

a School of Postgraduate Education for General Practice, University of Wales,
b CRG, 209 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF1 9PN and
c Department of Urology, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW,
d Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF4 4XN, UK.

Objective. We aimed to define a performance indicator at the gateway between primary and secondary care.

Method. We carried out an analysis of referral letters sent to an urological department within the catchment area of a teaching hospital in Cardiff, Wales. The subjects were 221 sequential referral letters from 221 GPs. The main outcome measures were the information content of referral letters analysed. Letters were stratified into referral threshold groups by the presence of history, examination, routine investigations and specialized investigations.

Results. Three distinct categories of referral practice were identified: referrals which contained history alone; those providing history examination and a selection of routine investigations; and those providing history, examination data and the results of routine and specialized investigations. The study demonstrated that more than a third of GPs do not report the results of digital rectal examination in their referrals and only 4% record urinary flow rates and post-micturition residual urine volume.

Conclusions. The majority (60%) of generalist referrals to an urology department for prostatism provide enough information for specialists to be able to prioritize appointments, but more than a third (36%) of the referrals contain inadequate information. The method has the potential of being developed into a gateway performance indicator in clinical practice.

Keywords. Performance indicator, prostatism..


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.