Waiting times and decision-making behind acute plastic surgery referrals in the UK
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Over the past decade, Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments in the United Kingdom have struggled to cope with a doubling in patient attendances and the combined impacts of the ‘four-hour rule’, the European Working Time Directive and Modernising Medical Careers. Our previous prospective study suggested that A&E referrals to Plastic Surgery may not always be clinically motivated, but could have been affected by lack of blinding to the Plastic Surgery department participating in the study. The current study aims to corroborate those findings retrospectively, thereby overcoming this bias, and to conduct a detailed analysis of the reasons for observed referral behaviours. Medical notes of one hundred consecutive A&E referrals to a single Plastic Surgery Unit were retrospectively reviewed, documenting patient demographics, referral reason, time taken for referral and review, patient transfer time and referral appropriateness, defined by the need for hospital admission, surgery or senior review. ‘Appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ referrals were compared statistically for Referral Time, Transfer Time and Review Time using the independent samples t-test. To explore the reasons for observed referral patterns, six semi-structured interviews were carried out with all grades of A&E staff members using the previously-documented ‘framework analysis method’ of deductive analysis to investigate emerging and assumed themes systematically. 73 referrals from A&E to Plastic Surgery were included in the study, most commonly for adult males with upper limb injuries. The most frequent treatment outcomes were conservative management or wound exploration with no identifiable deep injury. Mean Referral Time and Review Time was 1:53 hours and 0:58 hours respectively. 69% of referrals were considered Appropriate according to the study definition. As in the previous study, inappropriate referrals were referred significantly more quickly than appropriate ones, whereas review time was similar irrespective of referral appropriateness. Interview themes analaysis revealed junior doctor inexperience, resource constraints and unintended consequences of targets and protocols to be major non-clinical determinants of whether a referral was made. This study confirms that priorities other than clinical need may influence A&E referral behavior and provides valuable insights into the challenges and drivers determining it. A significant proportion of referrals from A&E to Plastic Surgery are inappropriate and quicker referrals are more likely to be inappropriate. Many junior doctors currently lack the confidence and competence to manage routine cases that fall under the remit of Plastic Surgery. Significant change is needed to address the current situation. The insights of this study may help to inform such change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».