Outpatient general surgical follow-up: Are we using this resource effectively?

BackgroundRaised patient expectations and the 2-week rule for the investigation of suspected malignancy have led to heightened demands on surgical outpatient clinics. In this context, the utility of benign post-operative or investigative follow-ups requires justification.MethodsThe surgical outpatient clinic workload of four substantive general surgeons at a typical DGH was analysed over a 4-week period. All notes were examined to identify referral source, management plan and whether that clinic attendance was justified.ResultsTwenty three clinics (410 patients) were examined over the period of this study. Three hundred and twenty one patient episodes were examined; 52 episodes did not occur due to patient non-attendance and 37 episodes were not accounted for (‘missing/incomplete data’). Thirty three percent of the patients underwent consultant review whilst 57% were reviewed by middle grade surgeons and 9% by SHO/ST2 doctors. Forty eight percent of the consultations were new referrals: 37% of these patients were added to the elective surgical waiting list. One hundred and sixty eight follow-up consultations occurred, which included cancer patients (6%), review patients (12%), patients attending for investigative results (13%) and benign post-operative follow-ups (22%). Forty six of the 69 (66%) post-operative follow-ups were deemed unnecessary as patients were being seen after benign procedures (hernia repair, anorectal surgery or laparoscopic cholecystectomy).ConclusionOver 50% attendances (21/41) for ‘normal’ results could have been avoided by the use of a directed informative letter. Outpatient clinics are an important resource whose usage must be optimised.