[Effectiveness of a new model of telephone derivation shared between primary care and hospital care]. / Efectividad de un nuevo modelo de derivación telefónica compartida entre atención primaria y atención hospitalaria.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to find out whether telephone referral from Primary Health Care to Internal Medicine Consult manages to reduce waiting days as compared to traditional referral. This study also aims to know how acceptable is the telephone referral to general practitioners and their patients. DESIGN: No blind randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Northern Huelva Health District. PARTICIPANTS: 154 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients referrals from intervention clinicians were sent via telephone consultation, whereas patients referrals from control clinicians were sent by traditional via. MEASUREMENTS: Number of days from referral request to Internal Medicine Consult. Number of telephone and traditional referrals. Number of doctors and patients denied. Denial reasons. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between groups, with an average of 27 (21-34) days. Among General Practitioners, 8 of the first 58 total doctors after randomization and, subsequently, 6 of the 20 doctors of the test group refused to engage in the trial because they considered "excessive time and effort consuming". 50% of patients referred by the 14 General Practitioners finally randomized to the intervention group were denied referral by telephone due to patient's complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone referral significantly reduces waiting days for Internal Medicine consult. This type of referral did not mean an "excessive time and effort consuming" to General Practitioners and was not all that beneficial to complex patients.

Efectividad de un nuevo modelo de derivación telefónica compartida entre atención primaria y atención hospitalaria / Effectiveness of a new model of telephone derivation shared between primary care and hospital care

Objetivo: Averiguar si la derivación telefónica desde Atención Primaria a consultas externas de Medicina Interna (CCEE de MI) reduce días de espera, con respecto a la derivación presencial. Averiguar la aceptación de la consulta telefónica por parte de los médicos de familia (MF) de Atención Primaria y de sus pacientes. Diseño: Ensayo clínico controlado aleatorizado sin enmascaramiento. Emplazamiento: Área de Gestión Sanitaria Norte de Huelva. Participantes: Ciento cincuenta y cuatro pacientes. Intervenciones: Los pacientes de los MF del grupo experimental fueron derivados vía telefónica (salvo cumplimiento criterios exclusión) y los del grupo control vía presencial. Mediciones: Número de días desde la solicitud de derivación hasta la consulta en MI. Número de derivaciones telefónicas y presenciales. Número de médicos y de pacientes rechazados. Causas de los rechazos. Resultados: Diferencia estadísticamente significativa, estimándose en 27 (21-34) días entre ambos grupos. De los 58 MF, 8 prealeatorización, y 6 de los 20 asignados al grupo experimental rechazaron participar por «suponer consumo excesivo de tiempo y esfuerzo». Para un 50% de los pacientes derivados por los 14 MF que quedaron finalmente en el grupo experimental se rechazó la vía telefónica, siendo la complejidad de los pacientes la principal causa. Conclusiones: La derivación telefónica reduce considerablemente los días de espera para CCEE de MI, elimina las principales barreras de la consulta telefónica a tiempo real, no supuso un mayor gasto de tiempo ni de esfuerzo para los médicos y no se consideró tan beneficiosa en pacientes complejo

Aim: The purpose of this study is to find out whether telephone referral from Primary Health Care to Internal Medicine Consult manages to reduce waiting days as compared to traditional referral. This study also aims to know how acceptable is the telephone referral to general practitioners and their patients. Design: No blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Northern Huelva Health District. Participants: 154 patients. Interventions: Patients referrals from intervention clinicians were sent via telephone consultation, whereas patients referrals from control clinicians were sent by traditional via. Measurements: Number of days from referral request to Internal Medicine Consult. Number of telephone and traditional referrals. Number of doctors and patients denied. Denial reasons. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between groups, with an average of 27 (21-34) days. Among General Practitioners, 8 of the first 58 total doctors after randomization and, subsequently, 6 of the 20 doctors of the test group refused to engage in the trial because they considered "excessive time and effort consuming". 50% of patients referred by the 14 General Practitioners finally randomized to the intervention group were denied referral by telephone due to patient's complexity. Conclusions: Telephone referral significantly reduces waiting days for Internal Medicine consult. This type of referral did not mean an "excessive time and effort consuming" to General Practitioners and was not all that beneficial to complex patients