What happens to patients following open access gastroscopy? An outcome study from general practice

Abstract

Background: Open access gastroscopy allows general practitioners to request a gastroscopy without prior referral to a specialist. The effect of open access gastroscopy upon patient management is poorly explored. Most studies have been hospital based and have focused on diagnostic yields and on means of tightening requests to reduce inefficient use. A user evaluation can only be made by measuring outcomes in primary care.

Aim: A study was undertaken to determine the impact of open access gastroscopy in general practice and in particular, the value of a normal result.

Method: All general practices in South Tees District Health Authority were asked to participate. Any of their patients who had had open access gastroscopy in the year prior to July 1990 were identified from the hospital computer and their general practitioner notes examined. Patient management during the year prior to the open access gastroscopy was compared with the year after. The main outcome measures were: detection rate and grade of lesion, change in graded score of prescribed drugs, consultation rate for dyspepsia and non-dyspepsia problems, and further hospital referral and investigations. Outcomes among those with normal and abnormal gastroscopy results were compared.

Results: The study sample comprised 715 patients, 36% of whom had a normal gastroscopy result, 34% a major abnormality and 26% a minor abnormality (4% of patients had miscellaneous diagnoses). It was found that 39% of all patients, and 60% of those with normal findings on open access gastroscopy had their drug treatment stopped or reduced in grade after the investigation. Of those with a major endoscopic abnormality 58% increased their treatment score. Consultations for dyspepsia in the year before and after gastroscopy fell by 57% overall among those with a normal gastroscopy result, by 37% among those with a minor finding and by 33% in those with a major finding. There was a 21% fall in consultations for all reasons among those with a normal gastroscopy result but those with a minor abnormality had a 23% increase in non-dyspepsia consultations. Of all patients 19% were referred to hospital subsequently.

Conclusion: Open access gastroscopy has a major effect upon patient management in general practice, and a normal endoscopy result has an important an impact as an abnormal one. Open access gastroscopy is associated with a rationalization of drug therapy, reduced consultations and a low hospital referral rate.