Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures

Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 146-151

  Mariotti, Giuliano ^a,d   Meggio, Alberto ^a,d   De Pretis, Giovanni ^b,c   Gentilini, Maria ^c  

^a Rovereto Hospital   (Italy)

^b APSS   (Italy)

^c Trust APSS   (Italy)

^d Rovereto Hospital   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANGIODYSPLASIA; ARTICLE; ATROPHIC GASTRITIS; CELIAC DISEASE; COLONOSCOPY; CONSULTATION; DELAYED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIVERTICULOSIS; DYSPLASIA; ENTERITIS; ESOPHAGITIS; ESOPHAGUS VARICES; FEMALE; GASTROSCOPY; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; ISCHEMIC COLITIS; KAPPA STATISTICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALLORY WEISS SYNDROME; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MICROSCOPIC COLITIS; NEOPLASM; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PATIENT SCHEDULING; PEPTIC ULCER; POLYP; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIME MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULES; COLONOSCOPY; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES; GASTROSCOPY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; ITALY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; PILOT PROJECTS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; SPECIALTIES, MEDICAL; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 47749126168     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007170     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Health Policy and Economic Research Unit. Waiting List Priorisation Scoring Systems. Discussion Paper no. 6. London: BMA, 1998
2. Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) Project. Moving forward. Final Report. Alberta: University of Calgary, 2005
3. Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145:488-96
4. Hadorn DC and the Steering Committee of the WCWL Project. Developing priority criteria for magnetic resonance imaging: results from the WCWL Project. Can Ass Radiol J 2002;53:210-18
5. Derrett S, Devlin N, Hansen P, Herbison P. Prioritizing patients for elective surgery. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 2003;19:91-105
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Referral Advice. A guide to appropriate referral from general to specialist services. London: NHS, 2001
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Referral guidelines for suspected cancer. London: NHS, 2005
8. Debnath D, Dielehner N, Gunning KA. Guidelines, compliance and effectiveness: a 12 months' audit in an acute district general healthcare trust on the two week rule for suspected colorectal cancer. Postgrad Med J 2002;78:748-51
9. Allgar V, Neal RD, Ali N, et al. Urgent GP referrals for suspected lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer. Br J Gen Pract 2006;56:355-62
10. Paterson WG, Depew WT, Paré P, et al. Canadian consensus on medically acceptable wait times for digestive health care. Can J Gastroenterol 2006;20:411-23
11. Hersey P, Blanchard K. Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1982
12. Mariotti G. Tempi d'attesa e priorità in sanità [Waiting times and priority in health care]. Milan: Franco Angeli ed., 1999
13. Mariotti G, Sommadossi R, Langiano T, Raggi R. Italy's public health system is changing from waiting times to priority [Letter]. BMJ 1999;318:1698-9
14. Deming WE. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986
15. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. An Introduction to Quality Improvement in Health Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: JCAHO, 1991
16. Hadorn DC and the Steering Committee of the WCWL Project. Setting priority for waiting lists: defining our terms. CMAJ 2000;163:857- 60
17. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Elective Services. Access Criteria For First Specialist Assessment (ACA). See http:// www.electiveservices.govt.nz
18. APSS (Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari). Manuale RAO (last version no 3/2007). See www.apss.tn.it
19. Fleischer DE, Van de Mierop F, Eisen GM, et al. A new system for defining endoscopic complications emphasizing the measure of importance. Gastrointest Endosc 1997;45:128-33
20. Gangi S. Cardiovascular complications after GI endoscopy: occurrence and risks in a large hospital system. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:679-85
21. Froehlich F, Repond C, Müllhaupt B, et al. Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria? Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:333-41
22. de Bosset V, Froehlich F, Rey JP, et al. Do explicit appropriateness criteria enhance the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy? Endoscopy 2002;34:360-8
23. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:831-7
24. Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Froehlich F, et al. Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of open-access endoscopy unit. Endoscopy 1996;28:661-6
25. Parente F, Bargiggia S, Bianchi Porro G. Prospective audit of gastroscopy under the 'three-day rule': a regional initiative in Italy to reduce waiting time for suspected malignancy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002;16: 1011-14
26. Hadorn DC and the Steering Committee of the WCWL Project. Setting priorities on waiting lists: point-count systems as linear models. J Health Serv Res Policy 2003;8:48-54
27. Minoli G, Meucci G, Bortoli A, et al. The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:39-44
28. Hassan C, Bersani G, Buri L, et al. Appropriateness of upper-GI endoscopy: an Italian survey on behalf of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:767-74