↓ Skip to main content

The challenge of long waiting lists: how we implemented a GP referral system for non-urgent specialist' appointments at an Australian public hospital

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The challenge of long waiting lists: how we implemented a GP referral system for non-urgent specialist' appointments at an Australian public hospital
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-10-303
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley A Stainkey, Isaac A Seidl, Andrew J Johnson, Gladys E Tulloch, Tilley Pain

Abstract

OUR PROBLEM: The length of wait lists to access specialist clinics in the public system is problematic for Queensland Health, general practitioners and patients. To address this issue at The Townsville Hospital, the GP Liaison Officer, GPs and hospital staff including specialists, collaborated to develop a process to review patients waiting longer than two years. GPs frequently send referrals to public hospital specialist clinics. Once received, referrals are triaged to Category A, B or C depending on clinical criteria resulting in appointment timeframes of 30, 90 or 365 days for each category, respectively. However, hospitals often fail to meet these targets, creating a long wait list. These wait listed patients are only likely to be seen if their condition deteriorates and an updated referral upgrades them to Category A. PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM: A letter sent to long wait patients offered two options 1) take no action if the appointment was no longer required or 2) visit their GP to update their referral on a clinic specific template if they felt the referral was still required. Local GPs were advised of the trial and provided education on the new template and minimum data required for specialist referrals. WHAT HAPPENED: In 2008, 872 letters were sent to long wait orthopaedic patients and 101 responded. All respondents were seen at specially arranged clinics. Of these, 16 patients required procedures and the others were discharged. In 2009 the process was conducted in the specialties of orthopaedics, ENT, neurosurgery, urology, and general surgery. Via this new process 6885 patients have been contacted, 633 patients have been seen by public hospital specialists at specially arranged clinics and 197 have required a procedure. LEARNINGS: Since the start of this process in 2008, the wait time to access a specialist appointment has reduced from eight to two years. The process described here is achievable across a range of specialties, deliverable within the routine of the referral centre and identifies the small number of people on the long wait list in need of a procedure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 169 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 9 5%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 87 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 26%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Engineering 6 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 93 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2014.
All research outputs
#4,767,426
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,238
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,011
of 101,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 101,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.