Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Sep;44(9):884-9.
doi: 10.1111/imj.12480.

The undivided patient: a retrospective cohort analysis of specialty referrals made from inpatient general medical units comparing regional to metropolitan practice

Affiliations
Comparative Study

The undivided patient: a retrospective cohort analysis of specialty referrals made from inpatient general medical units comparing regional to metropolitan practice

M G Brown et al. Intern Med J. 2014 Sep.

Abstract

Background: In an era of growing subspecialisation there has been significant research into the role, determinants and outcomes of outpatient referrals but very little on inpatient specialty referrals from general medical units.

Aims: This study aims to describe and compare the rate of specialty referrals from inpatient general medical units in a regional general and a metropolitan tertiary hospital, and review associated outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of general medical admissions over the 10-week period extending from 28 March to 5 June 2011. Two hospitals were included in the study; West Gippsland Hospital (WGH) and Monash Medical Centre (MMC). For all admissions, details of patient demographics, episode of care and number of inpatient referrals made per admission were extracted from the medical records. Rates and outcomes of inpatient referrals were calculated and compared.

Results: There were 116 admissions to MMC and 108 (107 available for analysis) to WGH during the study period. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between the two sites. However, there were significantly fewer active conditions (2.87 vs 4.01, P < 0.01), fewer specialty fields represented (2.50 vs 3.51, P < 0.01) and fewer specialty referrals made per admission at WGH compared with MMC (0.69 vs 1.74, P < 0.01). The referral rate per diagnosis and the rate of referrals per specialty field represented were significantly higher at MMC compared with WGH (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: This preliminary study suggests that patients admitted to rural hospital general medical units have fewer active conditions with fewer specialty referrals made per admission, compared with a comparator metropolitan hospital general medical unit. Further research is required to investigate the reasons for such differences and implications for policy and practice.

Keywords: general internal medicine; referral process; rural medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Author reply: To PMID 24863630.
    Brown M, Campbell D. Brown M, et al. Intern Med J. 2015 May;45(5):589-90. doi: 10.1111/imj.12741. Intern Med J. 2015. PMID: 25955468 No abstract available.
  • Audit of inpatient referrals.
    Simpson G. Simpson G. Intern Med J. 2015 May;45(5):589. doi: 10.1111/imj.12692. Intern Med J. 2015. PMID: 25955469 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources