Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Is there a need for a GP consultant at a university hospital?

BMC Family Practice20089:55

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-9-55

Received: 14 May 2008

Accepted: 30 September 2008

Published: 30 September 2008

Abstract

Background

Patients in hospital can develop complaints unrelated to the condition they are admitted for. The treating specialist will then call upon a co-specialist who is specialized in the clinical picture associated with the new complaint. For such a complaint, the GP is usually the first contact, when the patient is not in hospital. Normally specialists only encounter patients GPs have selected for referral. The risk of the specialist overestimating the predictive value of 'unselected' complaints and symptoms of a serious condition is high. This may lead to an overuse of diagnostic treatments. Such treatments weigh more heavily on the patient, cause inadequate use of hospital facilities and, as a consequence, generate higher costs.

Because of these considerations, we wished to investigate if there is a need for the GP as a consultant for new complaints during hospital admittance.

Method

The files of a random sample of patients who had an interdisciplinary consultation during their stay in hospital were judged by an expertpanel whether the consultation fitted the expertise of a GP.

Results

In 28 out of 84 files the consultation fitted the expertise of a GP; most cases concerned a specific condition that is not part of the specialist's expertise, most frequently dermatological problems. In a minority of cases the specialist is confronted with a clinical problem with symptoms of which the cause is not clear, for example fever.

Conclusion

Generally, the consultations concern serious, often very complex conditions, i.e. cases that should be assessed by a specialist. Nevertheless, the expert panel's judgment of the interdisciplinary consultations shows that in more than half of the dermatological cases and in a limited number of consultations by a specialist of internal medicine and geriatrics the problems fit the GP's expertise.

Given the morbidity in academic hospitals we suppose that the results of a similar study in a peripheral hospital might even show more perspective for a GP consultant. These results offer sufficient arguments to start a pilotstudy into the role of a GP consultant in hospital.

Background

The role of the GP in hospitals varies greatly in different countries. In the United States, for example, the GP has a place in small, general hospitals. In Canada GPs have a few beds reserved where they can admit their own patients and call for a specialist consultation. In the United Kingdom, GPs have gained experience in the hospital emergency department. It has been shown that hospital doctors and medical specialists ask more often for additional tests than GPs in the emergency setting [1]. In the United Kingdom, GPs with a special interest have also been employed, who carry out substituting tasks for patients of certain categories [2].

The Netherlands have traditionally made a strict division between family medicine and specialist care. If needed, GPs refer patients to a specialist. Should the specialist choose to have the patient admitted, he is responsible for the care during admittance.

Sometimes, hospitalized patients develop a symptom that is unrelated to the condition they are admitted for. The treating specialist will then call upon a co-specialist who is specialized in the clinical picture associated with the new symptom, so he can help with diagnosis and therapy. However, the new symptom may be quite common, concerning for example the musculoskeletal system, upper respiratory tract infections, or cutaneous diseases. For such a complaint, the GP is usually the first contact, when the patient is not in hospital. Normally specialists only encounter patients GPs have selected for referral. The morbidity pattern a specialist's meets, is very different from that of a GP especially in a university hospital. The risk of the specialist overestimating the predictive value of 'unselected' complaints and symptoms of a serious condition is high. Should a specialist be consulted for problems usually dealt with by the GP, this may lead to a rise in diagnostic procedures. Such procedures weigh more heavily on the patient, cause inadequate use of hospital facilities and, as a consequence, generate higher costs.

Because of these considerations, we wished to investigate if there is a need for the GP as a consultant for new symptoms during stay in hospital.

We formulated the following research questions:

1. How many patients admitted at the university hospital need consultation for a symptom other than the one they were admitted for?

2. What is the nature of these consultation requests and are they sufficiently clear?

3. Which requests fit the GPs' expertise?

Method

We decided upon a retrospective study of patients who had an interdisciplinary consultation during their stay at the University Medical Centre of Groningen (UMCG). In order to formulate possible inclusion criteria for a sample we searched Pubmed ('95 until present) with the MESH terms 'referral and consultation' and with the free text 'interdisciplinary consultation'. This search, however, yielded no articles that concern the topic of this study so that no criteria for the sample could be formulated.

We used the medical financial administration of the hospital to retrieve all patients that had an interdisciplinary consultation during a hospital stay in 2006. Patients who were admitted to the department of psychiatry were excluded.

Consecutively two random samples were drawn. With the data of the first sample we wanted to answer to the first and second study question. We decided that if a GP could play a role as a consultant in at least 25% of the consultations of a certain discipline, that discipline would be included in the second part of the study to give an answer to the second and third question. Based on this criterion, the second sample was limited to three consulted disciplines (dermatology, internal medicine and geriatrics).

The GP researcher went through the dossiers, and registered the following relevant data on a form:

Patient data for interdisciplinary consultations

UMCG number

Date of birth

Age

Gender

Length of admittance

Date of consultation

Admitting department/discipline requesting consultation

Consulted discipline

Patient known to discipline

Follow-up consultations

Reason for admittance

Co morbidity

Consultation request

Quantity of the request

Quality of the request

Advice consultant/interventions

Diagnosis consultant

Discharge diagnosis

Clarity on follow-up

Reporting back to the GP

A panel of experts judged the consultations (as registered by the GP researcher). The choice for an expert panel was made because no criteria could be derived from the literature, i.e. the experience based knowledge of the members determined the ultimate judgment. This panel consisted of four members: an experienced GP with an academic background, an experienced GP form a peripheral practice, a general internist and a clinical geriatrist (both working in an academic setting). We chose these last disciplines because of the broad scope of their expertise.

The panel members had three options to choose from in judging the consultations:

1. Yes, this problem fits the expertise of the GP.

2. There is doubt this problem would fit the expertise of the GP.

3. No, this problem does not fit the expertise of the GP.

It was also judged whether the registered consultation request was well-defined and whether the relevant discipline had been contacted before. As well, it was determined if the end report was clear on the follow-up of the consultation.

The panel members read and evaluated all the registration forms. Subsequently, the panel members discussed all cases in two sessions lead by the project leader, during which the researcher provided additional information from the dossiers when needed or wanted. When the panel members disagreed, they discussed the case until consensus was reached.

Results

According to the medical financial administration out of all the patients admitted at the UMCG in 2006 (about 32000) an interdisciplinary consultation was requested for 2257 patients (9%). Those admitted to the department of psychiatry were excluded (41), leaving 2216 dossiers (table 1) out of which a first random sample of 60 dossiers was drawn.
Table 1

Number of interdisciplinary consultations at UMCG in 2006

Discipline

Consultations

%

Dermatology

878

31

Surgery

333

12

ENT

314

11

Oral surgery

270

10

Paediatric neurology

158

6

Ophthalmology

144

5

Internal medicine

119

4

In 25 dossiers there was no record of the interdisciplinary consultation, leaving 35 dossiers for analysis.

An interdisciplinary consultation is requested most often for patients staying at the departments of internal medicine, surgery and neurology. This spread is consistent with the total number of admissions for these disciplines in 2006.

The average length of admittance for all admitted patients is 10 days. For admitted patients who had an interdisciplinary consultation, this is 20 days. The longer the hospital stay, the higher the chance of an interdisciplinary consultation. Both genders were equally represented (50-50) in the patients.

Consultation is given to all ages, though there are clearly more consultation requests for patients ageing between 59 and 70 years old.

In the first sample of the 35 randomly selected dossiers three of the consulted disciplines met the 25% criterion: dermatology, general internal medicine and geriatrics.(table 2)
Table 2

Cases from the first random sample (n = 35)

Consult requesting discipline

Diagnosis

Consulted discipline

Question/diagnosis

Judgment expert panel: yes/no to GP

Internal medicine

Fever e.c.i.

Orthopaedia

Infected hip prosthetic

No

 

Geriatric issues

Psychiatry

Psychiatric diagnosis

No

 

Colitis ulcerosa

Gynaecology

Check during pregnancy

No

 

Liver cirrhosis

Dermatology

Treatment lice

Yes

 

Multiple issues

Dermatology

Treatment lip oedema

Yes

 

AML, hepatorenal syndrome

Dermatology

Treatment oedema

No

 

Respiratory insufficiency

Gynaecology

Judgment

No

 

Lymph node metastases

Gynaecology

magnesium suppletion

No

 

M. Crohn, liver transplant

Dermatology

Gynaecological primary tumor

Yes

 

Hypertension, complex issues

ENT

 

No

  

Gynaecology

Treatment wart

No

 

Cardial asthma

Dermatology

Deviation sinus, tumor

Yes

 

Disturbance of consciousness

Geriatrics

Post menopausal blood loss

No

 

Arhythmia, delirium

Cardiology

Hypostatic eczema

No

 

Osteosarcoma

Urology

Judgment delirium

No

 

Joint complaints

Psychiatry

Cardial ischemia

No

 

Disturbance of consciousness

Dermatology

Bladder pathology

Doubt

 

Systemic disease

Psychiatry

Conversion of schizophrenia

No

 

Liver cirrhosis

Psychiatry

Paronychia

No

 

Neuroleptic malignant

 

Psychiatric screening

 
 

syndrome

 

Co treatment

 

Surgery

Oesophageal carcinoma

ENT

Recurrent paresis

No

 

Rectal carcinoma

Neurology

CVA

No

 

Stomach ache, no surgical

Gynaecology

Gynaecological cause

Doubt

 

deviation

Ophtalmology

Screening diabetic

No

 

Tendon sheath panaritium

Cardiology

retinopathy

No

 

Bronchial carcinoma

 

Decompensation cordis

 

Neurology

Transverse lesion

Urology

Treatment urosepsis

No

 

Tumor cerebri

ENT

Judgment infection focus

No

 

Polytraumatised

Jaw surgery

Judgment fracture recovery

No

 

CVA

Ophtalmology

Funduscopy embolies

No

 

CVA

ENT

CT-deviation throat and thorax

No

 

CVA

Dermatology

Bandaging DVT

Yes

 

CVA

Internal medicine

Diabetes mellitus and dehydration

No

Cardiology

Intended valve replacement

Oral surgery

Judgment infection focus

No

Gynaecology

Vulvar carcinoma

Dermatology

Bandaging lymph node oedema

Yes

Paediatrics

Benign brain tumor

Paediatric neurology

Increased intracranial pressure

No

In the second sample of 67 dossiers restricted to these three disciplines 18 dossiers had no record of the interdisciplinary consultation, leaving 49 dossiers for analysis. The results are summarized in table 3.
Table 3

Cases from the second random sample (n = 49)

Consult requesting discipline

Diagnosis

Consulted discipline

Question/diagnosis

Judgment expert panel: yes/no to GP

Paediatrics

Lymph node oedema

Dermatology

Treatment wart

Yes

 

Neurological issues

Dermatology

Treatment monoliasis

Yes

 

Muscular dystrophy, cardiomyopathy

Dermatology

Seborrhoic eczema

Yes

 

Extended hemangioma

Dermatology

PHACES syndrome

No

Neurology

Transverse lesion

Internal medicine

Fever e.c.i.

No

 

Impaired awareness

 

Delirium, complex issues

No

 

Impaired awareness

Geriatrics

 

No

 

Cerebral deviations, artificial respiration

Geriatrics Internal

Delirium urinary tract infection

No

 

Suspicion of ALS

Medicine

Fever and dehydration

 
  

Dermatology

Toxicodermia

 

Surgery

Pancreatoduodenectomy

Dermatology

Treatment herpes zoster

Yes

 

Abdominal aortic aneurysm

Dermatology

Herpes simplex infection

Yes

 

Septic embolies

Internal medicine

Fasciitis necroticans

No Doubt

 

Arteriosclerotic amputation

Geriatrics

Delirium

No

   

Generalised oedema

Doubt

 

Pancreatitis

Dermatology

Pitting oedema, decubitus

Yes

 

Polytraumatised

Dermatology

Bone densimetry

No

 

Ankle fracture

medicine

VAC treatment

 
 

Non-healing leg wound

Dermatology

  

Urology

Stone removal

Dermatology

Treatment herpes simplex

Yes

Gynaecology

Vulvar carcinoma

Dermatology

Treatment erysipelas

No

Internal

Fever e.c.i.

Dermatology

Treatment ulcera cruris

Doubt

medicine

Heart failure

Dermatology

Treatment ulcera cruris

Yes

 

Heart failure

Geriatrics

Treatment delirium

Yes

 

Oedema alcohol abuse

Dermatology

Treatment oedema, dry skin

Yes

 

Colotis ulcerosa, pneumonia

Dermatology

 

Yes

 

M. Kahler, sepsis

Dermatology

Judgment pustulous

No

 

Asthma, adipositas

Dermatology

condition

Doubt

 

Heart failure

Geriatrics

Bullous erysepilas

No

 

Kidney biopsy

Dermatology

Erysepilas

Yes

 

Atrial fibrillation, diabetes

Geriatrics

Delirium, complex issues

Doubt

 

mellitus

Dermatology

 

Yes

 

Liver cirrhosis

Dermatology

Oedema without DVT

Yes

 

Pneumonia

Dermatology

Delirium

No

 

Bacteremia streptococci

Dermatology

Oedema

No

 

Bacteremia streptococci

Dermatology

Herpes simplex infection

No

 

Erysipelas

Dermatology

Toxicodermia

Yes

 

Intestine issues

Dermatology

Decubitus

No

 

Sepsis

Dermatology

Orthoergic eczema

Yes

 

Pancreatitis

Dermatology

Pitting oedema

No

 

Vasculitis

Dermatology

Bullous erysepilas

No

 

T-cell lymphoma

Dermatology

Xerosis cutis

Yes

 

Ascites peritonitis sclerosis

Dermatology

Ulcera lower legs

Yes

  

Geriatrics

Panniculitis treatment

No

 

Kidney insufficiency

Dermatology

Pitting oedema

No

 

Collaps, dyspnoe d'effort

Dermatology

Xerosis cutis

Yes

 

T-cell lymphoma, sarcoidosis

 

Delirium

 
 

Pancreatitis

 

T-cell lymphoma pleuritis Pitting oedema

 

Pulmonary diseases

Respiratory insufficiency

Dermatology

Eczema

Yes

Orthopaedia

Total hip prosthetic

Geriatrics

TIA

No

ENT

Mastodoitis, facial paresis

Internal medicine

Pancytopenic fever

No

During the consensus meeting, the members of the expert panel came to the following conclusions concerning the consultation requests:

The requests were mostly concise and the panel judged 60% of the cases as qualitatively good. In most cases, the report of the consulted specialist was judged as adequate.(3)

In 60% of the cases, the specialist made an appointment for a follow-up consultation. What the follow-up would entail was nearly always clear.

In 23% of the cases, the GP was not informed about the consultation at discharge of the patient.

In 94% of the cases, the expert panel reached consensus on whether or not the GP could have conducted the concerned consultation. Out of 82 cases, the panel found that 28 cases could have been handled by the GP versus 48 cases which could not have been. In 6 cases, the panel was not sure. (table 4) For most cases, the expert panel's judgment was unanimous. In 5 cases, the ratio was 3 against 1.
Table 4

Judgment from the expert panel on the interdisciplinary consultations (N = 84)

Consensus expert panel:

 

GP consultant good alternative

28

GP consultant no alternative

48

Doubt

6

No consensus expert panel

2

Discussion

Although the expert panel judged two third of the consultation requests as good, they agreed that many of the specialists did not formulate a clear request, but instead made a list of the observed problems and asked for treatment advice [3]. Especially for complex problems, the specialist does not seem to judge carefully beforehand which discipline would be best suited, based on priorities. In such cases, the discipline receiving the consultation request appeared to choose a solution based on the options the discipline could offer.

In cases where the expert panel could not reach consensus or took a long time to do so, this had to do with insufficient information on the medical history of the patient.

The level of expertise of the doctor requesting consultation was also considered to be of importance to the question of whether the GP could have conducted the consultation or not. Judging the general knowledge of an internist asking a geriatrist for a consultation on complex issues, for example, consultation by a GP seems less obvious.

In a small number of cases GPs and specialists of the panel could not reach agreement on the possible role of the GP.

Most cases of interdisciplinary consultation concern a specific condition that is not part of the specialist's expertise, for example dermatological problems. Skin conditions that can be treated by the GP according to the committee, are viral infections concerning the herpes simplex virus and the varicella zoster virus, venous ulcera cruris, venous insufficiency oedema, and superficial skin conditions concerning bacteria, fungi and yeast. Also eczema and xerosis cutis are conditions that can be treated by the GP.

In a minority of cases the specialist is confronted with a clinical problem with symptoms of which the cause is not clear, for example fever.

Generally, the consultations concern serious, often very complex conditions, i.e. cases that should be assessed by a specialist. Nevertheless, the expert panel's judgment of the interdisciplinary consultations shows that in more than half of the dermatological cases and in a limited number of consultations by a specialist of internal medicine and geriatrics the problems fit the GP's expertise. On a total number of 878 dermatological consults this implies a potential number of 527 consults for a GP consultant yearly in this discipline alone.

Furthermore both samples of interdisciplinary consults had a considerable number of missing reports (40% and 25% resp), which should be taken into account when estimating the potential workload for a GP consultant.

With regard to the grave and complex problems of patients in academic hospitals we suppose that the results of a similar study in a peripheral hospital might even show more perspective for a GP consultant.

Conclusion

This study focused on the possible role of a GP consultant at the hospital, concerning admitted patients suffering from a condition other than the one they were admitted for. Our research shows there might be such a role for a GP, especially for dermatological problems. Our results offer sufficient arguments to start a pilot study on the role of a GP consultant in a hospital. Such a project would learn us more about the acceptance of a GP consultant by specialists and may open up possibilities for a new role: one in which the GP gives advice on choice-making, prioritizing, and determining the applicability of treatment plans.

Appendix

Examples of an interdisciplinary consultation that could have been conducted by a GP

A 20 year-old man is well-known to M. Crohn and admitted at internal medicine after a liver transplant. The immunosuppressive therapy given because of the transplant causes warts, for which a dermatologist is called in. The dermatologist's diagnosis is verrucae vulgares and prescribes liquid N2 for the face and monochloric acid for the hands. (17)

A 56 year-old woman is admitted to internal medicine because of a decompensated liver cirrhosis due to alcohol abuse. A psychiatrist is asked to confirm the alcohol abuse. No cognitive problems or psychopathology are found, though the patient possibly leans towards an avoidance personality. In the mean time, the alcohol abuse has ceased resolutely. (36)

Example of an interdisciplinary consultation that could not have been conducted by a GP

An 82 year-old man is admitted to internal medicine, experiencing blackouts. His dossier shows he ahs had a CVA and suffers from cardiac arhythmia. He has developed a progressive dyspnoe d'effort, disorientation and a reversal of day and night rhythm. A geriatrist was asked if this could be a case of a delirium. A Cheyne Stokes respiration pattern is diagnosed, as a consequence of cerebral damage and behavioural changes due to the CVA. Based on these problems and the hospital admittance, a delirium has developed, for which the patient receives medicinal treatment and nursing advice. (25)

Example of doubt

A 72 year-old is admitted to the geriatric department for observation of geriatric problems. His medical history shows angina pectoris, status post CABG, COPD and kidney insufficiency. A psychiatrist is asked to evaluate the possibility of an affective and/or a personality disorder. A depressive disorder, on top of a long history of recurring depressions is diagnosed, as well as a probable pervasive disorder of the Asperger type. The psychiatrist advices to put the patient on citalopram. (04)

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the Innovationfund of the University Medical Centre Groningen. JM received a salary from this fund while working for the project; KHG, JD, AJB and JS received no payment.

We thank the members of the expert panel: M. Bruinsma, GP, dr. G.J. Izaks, clinical geriatrist, dr. J. ter Maaten, general internist, and dr. L.J.G. Veehof, GP.

We thank dr G.Mitchell for his valuable, positive critical comments on our manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
General Practitioner, t'Z and
(2)
Department of General Practice, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen

References

  1. Dale J, Lang H, Roberts JA, Green J, Glucksman E: Cost effectiveness of treating primary care patients in accident and emergency: A comparison between general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars. BMJ. 1996, 312: 1340-1344.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Salisbury C, Noble A, Horrocks S, Crosby Z, Harrison V, Coast J, de BD, Peters T: Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005, 331: 1441-1446. 10.1136/bmj.38670.494734.7C.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Salerno SM, Hurst FP, Halvorson S, Mercado DL: Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007, 167: 271-275. 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/9/55/prepub

Copyright

© Mulder et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.