Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Postgraduate Medical Journal 2005;81:55-57; doi:10.1136/pgmj.2004.020693
© 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine.
Postgraduate Medical Journal 2005;81:55-57
© 2005 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

National review of urology outpatient practice in the UK

P E Gilmore1, D C Shackley2, N W Clarke2, C D Betts1, K J O’Flynn1

1 Department of Urology, Hope Hospital, Salford, Greater Manchester, UK
2 Department of Urology, Hope Hospital, Salford and Department of Surgery, Christie Hospital, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
MrPaul Gilmore
Department of Urology, Hope Hospital, Stott Lane, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 8HD, UK; paul.gilmore1{at}tiscali.co.uk

Objective: To audit the current UK outpatient workload and compare this to the national standards as set out by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) in A Quality Urological Service for Patients in the New Millennium published in October 2000.

Participants: 520 UK (NHS) and 21 Republic of Ireland (non-NHS) consultant urologists registered with BAUS in 2000.

Main outcome measures: Extent to which consultant urologists are able to comply with guidelines set out by their specialist association, the BAUS and by the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Results: The questionnaire return rate was 61% (318/520; regional range 42%–75%). The median "routine" clinics/week was two (1–5) with a mean of 13 (1–40) new and 26 (7–80) follow ups. Fifteen percent (49/318) of consultants worked alone in clinic; of the remainder assistance included specialist registrar 67% (212/318), staff grade/associate specialist 32% (102/318), senior house officer 53% (172/318), and pre-registration house officer 2% (7/318). Only 21% (66/318; regional range 0%–46%) of responding consultants followed the BAUS recommendations for outpatient workload/manpower.

Conclusions: A minority of consultants are able to adhere to the outpatient workload guidelines as set out by BAUS council in 2000. In addition, there appears to be significant variations within and between training regions. Development of this project into a regional audit tool may allow intraregional guideline formation governing hospital outpatient workload.

Keywords: surgical; outpatient; guidelines; compliance


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Bromage, S J, Napier-Hemy, R D, Payne, S R, Pearce, I (2006). Outpatient follow up appointments; Are we using the resources effectively?. Postgrad. Med. J. 82: 465-467 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.