Upload
ralph-mcgee
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
E-referrals..
Just do it!
Overview:
•Our pre-electronic era•Where we are now at•Value of the generic form•Recommendations
Problems from a GP perspective
• Mailing out of date compared to how they communicate with other external agencies
• Lack of trust in the hospital processes →faxing and mailing
• No clear guidelines on what information to include
• Multiple possible destinations for the same referral type
• Delayed and dislocated notification of the referral processing stages to the referrer
Problems from a hospital perspective
• No way to track a referral from primary care until entered
• Referrals being sent to specialists, to services and to Central Referrals
• Lost referrals: how many, where did it happen?
• Duplicate referrals (faxing and mailing)
And yet more problems…
• Faxing errors
• Multiple phone calls to services to check up on referrals
• 100% variation in referral processing by the services (non standard work→ errors hidden)
• Disconnect across the referral processing workflow (errors not being feedback to source)
What about the content?(audit MOPC referrals 2009)
• 150 GPs – at least 50 different formats
• Inconsistent inclusion of relevant clinical information (medications/problem lists)
• 14% lacked of clarity of the question being asked by the referrer
• 33% lacked results that would influence prioritisation
• 14% used wizard “cut and paste” to include more than 5 consultations
Extensive use of “wizard”
• 75%: no clear reason for referral
• 50%: did not include relevant results.
• 60-90%: of the C+P consultations contain irrelevant material
information dumping
Risk to both patient and recipient
Summary of audit findings
The majority of referrals contain the appropriate information
BUT
presentation of this information inconsistent and not easily accessible to the recipient.
Main problems/risks to address
GP:Replace paper with an electronic process
Hospital:
1. Faxing2. Cut and paste technique3. Processes applied to the referral4. Presentation /accessibility of information
Going electronic
2008•MOH call for submissions for pilots to improve
access to diagnostic services•NPIGG support to convert paper to electronic •Healthlink contracted to produce 3 e-forms
based on Hutt DHB e forms in use
March 2009•Release of e-referral platform consisting of a
colorectal, breast and generic forms
Where are we up to?
•Outpatient referrals only•5 customised forms, all other referrals via
generic template
•Electronic processing at Central Referrals Office
•Standardised referral processing across services
•Printing of referral at service level beginning
After 6 months we thought…
Gains in referral quality where to be found with customisation
The generic form had little to offer other than providing an interim complete
platform
The generic form
What has it given us?
Overall uptake – 92% (Oct 2010) of all OPC referrals electronic
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500M
arch
Apr
il
May
June
July
Aug
ust
Sep
tem
ber
Oct
ober
Nov
embe
r
Dec
embe
r
Janu
ary
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Apr
il
May
June
July
Aug
ust
Sep
tem
ber
2009 2010
e-referrals
total referrals
GP benefits
•Faster for GP
Anecdotal reports of referral done frequently at time of consultation
Reduction in after-hours work load 95 % completed Monday-Friday75% of these between 8am and 5pm
“they have revolutionised my referral work” Dr A Miller
•Provided a standard work flow
More GP benefits• Improved security:
– real time acknowledgement of receipt– No referral losses (in the e-system)
• Improved clarity as to what service to make the referral to (single point of entry)
• No confusion as to where to send the referral
And more…..
• Decision support available:
Hospital benefits from the generic e-form
•Eliminated faxed referrals to OPC
•Improved security
•Provided ability to audit work flow
•Improved demographic data inclusion
•No more inappropriate cut and paste
•Standardised presentation• improved accessibility of information to ALL
groups• faster and easier to process
Hospital benefits beyond the forms
Prompted a review of all processes
• “Single point of entry” for all referrals via central referrals
• Standard work flow for processing all referrals across all services (error proofing rather than error finding)
• Linked staff across services in the same work flow
• Introduced concept of errors going back to source
• Prompted a review of how we manage referrals to out peripheral hospitals (equity across Northland)
An un-intended spin off..
Due to the standard presentation, quality issues exposed.
stimulated interest of the hospital clinicians in referral quality
•Unmasked errors:
– Problem list: 56% error rate
– Medication list: 46% error rate – of these 78% were clinically significant
Patient benefits?
•Referral done closer to the decision made to refer
• Clinical referral information:– an initial drop, now neutral
•We don’t loose their referral
• Consistent clinical information:
positive influence on prioritisation but even bigger benefit at time of assessment.
Medication
list
Problem
list
Paper referral 55% 55%
Generic
e-referral 100% 100%
Summary
Electronic referrals out perform paper ones
The generic form:• enables rapid deployment of a electronic system
• offers GPs a consistent, faster and more secure work flow that is easily adopted
• Has benefits to all hospital staff and patients
Minimal change with significant gainBig bang for your buck
Asking GPs to make yet more change……
Successful customisation: what does it take?
Time: • To define the problem (why are we attempting this)• To quantify the size of the problem• To understand the patient flow the form will support• To review and optimise the work flow the referral will enter
Money to support:• GP/service collaboration in designing• The form to be “built” by the IT vendor• To engage with the users as to “why” at rollout• Evaluation post roll out with evolution (continuous improvement
projects)
Skill: it’s not as easy to produce a good form as you might think
Customised forms can add value but…
Referral security and information integrity are higher priorities to address.
They need a reliable electronic platform on which they can be placed, get this sorted first.
Recommendations
1. Introduce a generic platform “to the front door”
2. Address problems at the GPs end while addressing hospital processes
3.Consider customisation only once we have a robust platform.
Undertake as part of a service review process that includes GPs
Our future priorities
Referral security:• Incremental movement towards a full end to
end solution
Referral quality and function:• Further evaluation of our current forms • Improving feedback from all users • Work with GPs/PHO to improve data quality
from PMS• Add acute referrals to the platform • Customisation only if a problem big enough is
identified as part of a service redesign process
Acute referrals audit (10/2010)
• Service being referred to often not clear
• Name of accepting clinician rarely present
• 45% had no medication list
• 45% had no patient problem list
• Referral not present prior to patient presenting
Please lets stop re-inventing the wheel….
Continuous collaborative improvement
For any further information:
Wendy Carey: Surgical services OP manger
Peter Brown: elective services project manager
Glenys Wynyard: Central referrals office manager