Article

Second opinions and tertiary referrals in neurology

Academic Medical Centre, Dept. of Neurology, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Journal of Neurology (Impact Factor: 3.84). 10/2008; 255(11):1743-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-008-0019-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The number of neurological second opinions (SO) and tertiary referrals (TR) is increasing. The main purpose of this study was to assess whether a day-care admission made a meaningful contribution to standard neurological outpatient care, for a wide range of second opinions and tertiary referrals.
All new patients attending an academic neurological day-care clinic in a 6-month period were investigated. Before admission, all previous medical correspondence and ancillary investigations were reviewed. On the day of admission, extensive time was available for clinical evaluation and additional ancillary investigations and an attempt was made to come to a final diagnosis. Demographic characteristics, duration of symptoms, patient satisfaction, new diagnoses and treatment consequences were studied.
300 patients (183 SO and 117 TR) were evaluated. In total 103 patients (35 %) received a new diagnosis (26 % SO vs. 48 % TR, p < 0.001) and 69 (67 %) of these had therapeutic implications. A new treatment advice was given to a total of 149 patients (50 %), which was similar in both groups (48 % vs. 53 %). Second opinions were considered medically less relevant than tertiary referrals (39 % vs. 64 %, p < 0.001). The number of new diagnoses differed largely between various diagnosis categories. Especially somatoform disorders and radicular syndromes were often newly diagnosed.
A high number of second opinion and tertiary referral patients benefits from a day-care admission in a neurological outpatient clinic. Careful selection for referral of patients who will benefit from daycare admission may even enlarge the diagnostic and therapeutic yield.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Mervyn D I Vergouwen, Jun 26, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
219 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Patients with head and neck cancer frequently present to academic tertiary referral centers with imaging studies that have been performed and interpreted elsewhere. At our institution, these outside head and neck imaging studies undergo formal second opinion reporting by a fellowship-trained academic neuroradiologist with expertise in head and neck imaging. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of this practice on cancer staging and patient management. Methods Our institutional review board approved the retrospective review of randomized original and second opinion reports for 94 consecutive cases of biopsy proven or clinically suspected head and neck cancer in calendar year 2010. Discrepancy rates for staging and recommended patient management were calculated and, for the 32% (30/94) of cases that subsequently went to surgery, the accuracies of the reports were determined relative to the pathologic staging gold standard. Results Following neuroradiologist second opinion review, the cancer stage changed in 56% (53/94) of cases and the recommended management changed in 38% (36/94) of patients with head and neck cancer. When compared to the pathologic staging gold standard, the second opinion was correct 93% (28/30) of the time. Conclusion In a majority of patients with head and neck cancer, neuroradiologist second opinion review of their outside imaging studies resulted in an accurate change in their cancer stage and this frequently led to a change in their management plan.
    Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale 06/2013; 42(1):39. DOI:10.1186/1916-0216-42-39 · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Second opinion is a treatment ratification tool that may critically influence diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Second opinions constitute one of the largest expenditures of the supplementary health insurance programs provided by the Israeli health funds. The scarcity of data on physicians' attitudes toward second opinion motivated this study to explore those attitudes within the Israeli healthcare system. We interviewed 35 orthopedic surgeons and neurologists in Israel and qualitatively analyzed the data using the Grounded Theory approach. As a common tool, second opinion reflects the broader context of the Israeli healthcare system, specifically tensions associated with health inequalities. We identified four issues: (1) inequalities between central and peripheral regions of Israel; (2) inequalities between private and public settings; (3) implementation gap between the right to a second opinion and whether it is covered by the National Health Insurance Law; and (4) tension between the authorities of physicians and religious leaders. The physicians mentioned that better mechanisms should be implemented for guiding patients to an appropriate consultant for a second opinion and for making an informed choice between the two opinions. While all the physicians agreed on the importance of the second opinion as a tool, they raised concerns about the way it is provided and utilized. To be optimally implemented, second opinion should be institutionalized and regulated. The National Health Insurance Law should strive to provide the mechanisms to access second opinion as stipulated in the Patient's Rights Law. Further studies are needed to assess the patients' perspectives.
    07/2012; 1(1):30. DOI:10.1186/2045-4015-1-30
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the number of neurological second opinions (SOs) and tertiary referrals (TRs) is increasing, only little is known about expectations and patient satisfaction in this group of patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore expectations of patients who get a neurological SO or TR and to assess patient satisfaction in these groups of patients. All new patients attending an academic neurological day-care clinic in a 6-month period were investigated. Demographic characteristics, duration of symptoms, expectations and motivation, new diagnoses and treatment consequences were studied, and patient satisfaction with the previous physician and the day-care clinic physician was assessed. Three hundred consecutive patients (183 SOs and 117 TRs) were evaluated. SO patients were younger (47 years vs. 51 years), and their duration of symptoms was longer (24 vs. 13 months) than TR patients. Most patients expected a new diagnosis or treatment (60%). SO patients were equally as satisfied with the day-care clinic consultation as TR patients (overall satisfaction using a VAS-score ranging 0-10: 7.4 vs. 7.5; p = 0.81), and significantly less satisfied with the referring physician (overall satisfaction: 5.6 vs. 7.0; p < 0.001). SO patients, in particular, were more satisfied with the degree of information and emotional support provided by the consulting neurologist as compared to the referring physician. Receiving a new diagnosis and/or treatment advice did not influence satisfaction. A day-care admission for neurological SO and TR leads to an increase of patient satisfaction, irrespective of making a new diagnosis or initiation of a new treatment.
    Journal of Neurology 11/2010; 257(11):1869-74. DOI:10.1007/s00415-010-5625-1 · 3.84 Impact Factor