Abstract
The outcome of outpatient neurologic consultations has not been previously evaluated.
There is also no data regarding patients' perceptions of outpatient neurologic consultations.
In this study, we assessed the physician's evaluations of the outcome and utility
of neurologic consultations by reviewing office records of 108 patients referred for
consultation to a secondary level neurology clinic. Predefined criteria were used
to determine diagnosis and treatment changes resulting from the consultation and the
usefulness of the consultation. Outcome was defined as “resolved/improved”, “unchanged”,
or “worse”. The patients' perceptions of the usefulness of the neurologic consultations
were assessed by a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire evaluated patients' perceptions
of diagnosis and treatment changes, outcome and usefulness of the consultation. The
physician's evaluation was compared to the patients' perceptions. Neurologic consultations
resulted in diagnosis changes in 62% and treatment changes in 85%. Either diagnosis
or treatment changed in 92% of consultations, which were regarded as “useful”. Seventy-four
percent of patients concurred with the physician's evaluation of outcome and 96% concurred
that the consultation was useful. Although small, this study found that outpatient
neurologic consultations result in diagnosis and treatment changes in a substantial
proportion of patients.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of the Neurological SciencesAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Quality of healthcare. Part 2: Measuring quality of care.N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 966-970
- Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review.N Engl J Med. 1973; 288: 1323-1329
- Outcomes Management: a technology of patient experience.N Engl J Med. 1973; 288: 1323-1329
- Clinical audit and neurology.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992; 55 ([Suppl]): 19-25
- Proving the worth of neurologists?.Neurology. 1996; 46: 276-277
- Audit of an inpatient neurology consultation service in a tertiary referral center: value of the consulting neurologist.Ir Med J. 2005; 98: 134-137
- Ischemic stroke: outcomes, patient mix, and practice variation for neurologists and generalists in a community.Neurology. 1998; 50: 1669-1678
- Initial evaluations for multiple sclerosis in a university multiple sclerosis center: outcomes and role of magnetic resonance imaging in referral.Arch Neurol. 2005; 62: 585-590
- Does the neurologist contribute to the care of patients with chronic back pain?.Eur Neurol. 2002; 48: 61-64
- Aspects of referral care for headache associated with improvement.Headache. 2003; 43: 779-783
- Patient satisfaction with a neurological specialist consultation for headache.Scand J Prim Health Care. 2002; 20: 157-160
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
September 19,
2008
Received in revised form:
August 28,
2008
Received:
May 23,
2008
Footnotes
☆Presented at the Annual Meeting, American Academy of Neurology, San Diego, CA April 2006 (Neurology 2006;66(5)Suppl.2:A231-232).
☆☆Disclosures: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
