National review of urology outpatient practice in the UK.

P E Gilmore, D C Shackley, N W Clarke, C D Betts, K J O'Flynn
Author Information
  1. P E Gilmore: Department of Urology, Hope Hospital, Stott Lane, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 8HD, UK. paul.gilmore1@tiscali.co.uk

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To audit the current UK outpatient workload and compare this to the national standards as set out by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) in A Quality Urological Service for Patients in the New Millennium published in October 2000.
PARTICIPANTS: 520 UK (NHS) and 21 Republic of Ireland (non-NHS) consultant urologists registered with BAUS in 2000.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Extent to which consultant urologists are able to comply with guidelines set out by their specialist association, the BAUS and by the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
RESULTS: The questionnaire return rate was 61% (318/520; regional range 42%-75%). The median "routine" clinics/week was two (1-5) with a mean of 13 (1-40) new and 26 (7-80) follow ups. Fifteen percent (49/318) of consultants worked alone in clinic; of the remainder assistance included specialist registrar 67% (212/318), staff grade/associate specialist 32% (102/318), senior house officer 53% (172/318), and pre-registration house officer 2% (7/318). Only 21% (66/318; regional range 0%-46%) of responding consultants followed the BAUS recommendations for outpatient workload/manpower.
CONCLUSIONS: A minority of consultants are able to adhere to the outpatient workload guidelines as set out by BAUS council in 2000. In addition, there appears to be significant variations within and between training regions. Development of this project into a regional audit tool may allow intraregional guideline formation governing hospital outpatient workload.

References

  1. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jul;5(3):140-7 [PMID: 11183624]
  2. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000 Aug;6(3):273-9 [PMID: 11083038]
  3. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2001;13(2):138-43 [PMID: 11373878]
  4. Ir J Med Sci. 2002 Apr-Jun;171(2):89-93 [PMID: 12173897]
  5. J R Soc Med. 2002 Dec;95(12):604-5 [PMID: 12461147]
  6. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999 Jun;11(3):215-9 [PMID: 10435842]
  7. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Apr 30;296(6631):1247-8 [PMID: 3133029]
  8. BMJ. 1995 Mar 4;310(6979):581-2 [PMID: 7888937]
  9. Heart. 1998 Mar;79(3):223-4 [PMID: 9602652]
  10. Ann Plast Surg. 1999 Jan;42(1):56-60 [PMID: 9972719]
  11. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Mar 29;292(6524):870-3 [PMID: 3083919]

MeSH Term

Guideline Adherence
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Ireland
Medical Audit
Medical Staff, Hospital
Outpatient Clinics, Hospital
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Quality of Health Care
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom
Urology
Workload

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0outpatientBAUSUKworkloadset2000specialistregionalconsultantsauditUrologicalSurgeonsconsultanturologistsableguidelinesrangehouseofficerOBJECTIVE:currentcomparenationalstandardsBritishAssociationQualityServicePatientsNewMillenniumpublishedOctoberPARTICIPANTS:520NHS21RepublicIrelandnon-NHSregisteredMAINOUTCOMEMEASURES:ExtentcomplyassociationRoyalCollegeEnglandRESULTS:questionnairereturnrate61%318/52042%-75%median"routine"clinics/weektwo1-5mean131-40new267-80followupsFifteenpercent49/318workedaloneclinicremainderassistanceincludedregistrar67%212/318staffgrade/associate32%102/318senior53%172/318pre-registration2%7/31821%66/3180%-46%respondingfollowedrecommendationsworkload/manpowerCONCLUSIONS:minorityadherecounciladditionappearssignificantvariationswithintrainingregionsDevelopmentprojecttoolmayallowintraregionalguidelineformationgoverninghospitalNationalreviewurologypractice

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)