Assessment of multiple-opinion referrals and consults at the BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic.

Adam P Sage, Elliot James, Megan Burke, Edmond S Chan, Tiffany Wong
{"title":"Assessment of multiple-opinion referrals and consults at the BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic.","authors":"Adam P Sage,&nbsp;Elliot James,&nbsp;Megan Burke,&nbsp;Edmond S Chan,&nbsp;Tiffany Wong","doi":"10.1186/s13223-023-00806-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergic disease is on the rise. Waitlists for specialists are long, and many referred patients have already received prior allergic assessment, either by a certified Allergist, Primary Care Provider, or other Specialist. It is important to understand the prevalence and motivating factors for multiple-opinion referrals, to deliver timely assessment for patients with allergic disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review of demographic information, number of previous consultations, and motivation for new consults and multiple-opinion referrals, of pediatric patients aged 8 months-17 years to BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic from September 1, 2016-August 31, 2017, was performed. Referral data including reason for referral or multiple-opinion, primary allergic concerns, and others, from referral forms and consult notes were accessed through local Electronic Medical Records and subsequently analyzed for trends in categorical variables to assess the rationale for and impact of multiple-opinion referrals to our clinic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1029 new referrals received, 210 (20.4%) were multiple-opinion referrals. Food allergy was the predominant allergic concern prompting further opinion (75.7%). The main rationale for seeking further opinions was wanting an assessment by a certified allergist in cases where prior consultation was performed by non-allergist specialist, primary care provider, or alternative health care provider. Of second-opinion referrals generated, 70 (33.3%) initial consultations were performed by an Allergist, whereas 140 (66.7%) were performed by a non-allergist.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Many new consults at the BCCH Allergy Clinic are multiple-opinion assessments, contributing to long waitlists. Advocacy at the systems level through standardized referral guidelines, centralized triaging systems, and stronger support for Primary Care Providers is needed to provide better access in Canada for children needing a specialized Allergist. Trial registration UBC/BCCH Research Ethics Board.</p>","PeriodicalId":7702,"journal":{"name":"Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology : Official Journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology","volume":"19 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10266304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology : Official Journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-023-00806-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Allergic disease is on the rise. Waitlists for specialists are long, and many referred patients have already received prior allergic assessment, either by a certified Allergist, Primary Care Provider, or other Specialist. It is important to understand the prevalence and motivating factors for multiple-opinion referrals, to deliver timely assessment for patients with allergic disease.

Methods: A retrospective chart review of demographic information, number of previous consultations, and motivation for new consults and multiple-opinion referrals, of pediatric patients aged 8 months-17 years to BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic from September 1, 2016-August 31, 2017, was performed. Referral data including reason for referral or multiple-opinion, primary allergic concerns, and others, from referral forms and consult notes were accessed through local Electronic Medical Records and subsequently analyzed for trends in categorical variables to assess the rationale for and impact of multiple-opinion referrals to our clinic.

Results: Of 1029 new referrals received, 210 (20.4%) were multiple-opinion referrals. Food allergy was the predominant allergic concern prompting further opinion (75.7%). The main rationale for seeking further opinions was wanting an assessment by a certified allergist in cases where prior consultation was performed by non-allergist specialist, primary care provider, or alternative health care provider. Of second-opinion referrals generated, 70 (33.3%) initial consultations were performed by an Allergist, whereas 140 (66.7%) were performed by a non-allergist.

Conclusions: Many new consults at the BCCH Allergy Clinic are multiple-opinion assessments, contributing to long waitlists. Advocacy at the systems level through standardized referral guidelines, centralized triaging systems, and stronger support for Primary Care Providers is needed to provide better access in Canada for children needing a specialized Allergist. Trial registration UBC/BCCH Research Ethics Board.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估在不列颠哥伦比亚省儿童医院过敏诊所的多意见转诊和咨询。
背景:变态反应性疾病呈上升趋势。专家的等待名单很长,许多转诊的患者已经接受了事先的过敏评估,无论是由认证的过敏专科医生,初级保健提供者,或其他专家。了解多意见转诊的患病率和激励因素,为过敏性疾病患者提供及时的评估是很重要的。方法:回顾性分析2016年9月1日至2017年8月31日在卑诗省儿童医院过敏门诊就诊的8个月至17岁儿童患者的人口统计信息、既往会诊次数、新会诊动机和多意见转诊。通过本地电子病历获取转诊表格和会诊记录中的转诊数据,包括转诊或多意见转诊的原因、主要过敏问题等,随后分析分类变量的趋势,以评估多意见转诊到我们诊所的理由和影响。结果:1029例新转诊患者中,多意见转诊210例(20.4%)。食物过敏是最主要的过敏问题(75.7%)。寻求进一步意见的主要理由是,在之前由非过敏专科医生、初级保健提供者或替代卫生保健提供者进行咨询的情况下,希望由经过认证的过敏专科医生进行评估。在产生的第二意见转诊中,70例(33.3%)由过敏症专科医生进行初步咨询,而140例(66.7%)由非过敏症专科医生进行。结论:许多bch过敏诊所的新会诊是多意见评估,导致长时间的等待名单。需要通过标准化转诊指南、集中分诊系统和对初级保健提供者的更强有力的支持在系统层面进行宣传,以便在加拿大为需要专业过敏症专家的儿童提供更好的机会。试验注册UBC/BCCH研究伦理委员会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信