Bishop's Castle Medical Practice, Schoolhouse Lane, Bishop's Castle, Shropshire SY9 5BP, UK
Correspondence to: Dr J Campbell, Department of General Practice, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia 5005E-mail: jpcam{at}totalise.co.uk
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.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Luthy, C. Cedraschi, F. Herrmann, M. Kossovsky, E. Perrin, P. Chopard, J.-P. Michel, and A.-F. Allaz Appropriateness of hospital use: comparison between elderly patients' point of view and a structured questionnaire Age Ageing, November 1, 2007; 36(6): 681 - 684. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Rodriguez-Vera and E. P. de la Llave Inappropriate admissions J R Soc Med, January 2, 2002; 95(2): 111 - 111. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||