תוצאת חיפוש

Urgent, Unscheduled Self-Referrals by Ambulatory Patients

S. Vinker, S. Nakar, Z. Alon, H. Abu-Amar, G. Sadovsky, E. Hyam

General Sick Fund, Central District and Dept. of Family Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

Direct self-referral to a consultant is common in the Israeli health system. Yet patients' reasons for their urgent, unscheduled self-referrals for ambulatory consultations (UUSR) have not been explored. We studied such consultations in an urban multi-disciplinary consultation center serving a population of approximately 100,000. Over a 3-month period such consultations in ophthalmology, ear-nose-and-throat and dermatology clinics were treated by a duty family physician (FP). The FP was instructed to focus on the urgent complaint and either to give definitive treatment and schedule a consultation when needed, or refer the patient for immediate specialist consultation. Patients treated by the FP were asked to fill an anonymous questionnaire, which 347/645 (55.4%) did.

Among the reasons for UUSR were that the patient thought that his/her complaints should be treated by a consultant (29%), the patient was sent by the FP without a consultation note (13.9%), the FP was not available (10.4%), or the patient wished to see the consultant for a second opinion (8.2%). In only 7.8% had the patient noted that his complaint needed urgent consultation. Duration of complaints, but not prior efforts to schedule a consultation, were associated with different reasons for asking for an UUSR. For various reasons patients preferred an UUSR rather than seeing their own FP. Patients' opinions regarding self-referrals are important in planning primary care facilities and FP training.

Compulsory, Ambulatory Psychiatric Treatment

R. Durst, A. Teitelbaum, Y. Bar-El, M. Shlafman, Y. Ginath

Arie Jaros Jerusalem Mental Health Center and Talbieh Mental Health Center (Affiliated with the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem) and Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem District

The Treatment of Mentally Sick Persons Law of 1955, was repealed and replaced by the Law of 1991. Under the latter, the Order for Compulsory Ambulatory Treatment (OCAT) was addressed for the first time (Section 11, a-d). According to this law, the district psychiatrist instead of issuing a hospitalization order, may issue an OCAT, under which the required treatment is given within the scope of a clinic which he designates, for up to 6 months and under conditions which he specifies. This is done on the basis of psychiatric examination, or an application in writing from the director of a hospital or clinic, when continued ambulatory treatment is needed after discharge from hospital or instead of compulsory hospitalization. The district psychiatrist may extend the period of treatment for further periods, none of which is to exceed 6 months. Compulsory ambulatory treatment is to enable patients to benefit from the positive aspects of living freely in the community, while receiving prompt treatment under compulsory conditions. The concept offers a partial solution, achieving a balance between civil liberties and clinical needs, between over-confinement and under-treatment which might be dangerous or neglectful. The clinical impression has been that the OCAT has not fulfilled expectations. The purpose of this study was to examine the topic in a systematic way in Jerusalem and the soutern districts for the 4 years since inception of the law. In 44.4% of cases OCAT was proven to be effective, while in 33.1% it was found to be ineffective and did not prevent compulsory hospitalization, one of its main goals. It was partially effective in the rest of the cases. It is recommended that suitable means for the enforcement of the law be allocated and that the subject of forceful hospitalization and OCAT be made a mandatory subject in the residency program of psychiatrists.

Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in the Primary Care Setting

Shlomo Vinker, Sasson Nakar, Sergei Finkel, Emanuel Nir, Eitan Hyam

Family Medicine Dept., Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University; and Shaaraim Clinic, General Sick Fund, Rehovot; Central Cinical Laboratories, and District Medical Director, Central District of the General Sick Fund

The use of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) to prevent thromboembolism has been widespread in recent years. The concept of high- and low-intensity regimens has facilitated treatment for many, and has lowered the hazards of overly intense anticoagulation. However, a significant proportion of patients suited to the low intensity regimen are not being treated. It is not clear whether its wider use is limited by continued debate, lack of resources, lack of expertise, or other causes. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 32 patients treated with OAT administered in the primary care setting. The average age was 66±11 years (range 34-84). 9 were treated with high-intensity OAT: 8 due to artificial heart valves, and 1 due to a hypercoagulable syndrome with recurrent thromboembolism. 23 were treated with low-intensity OAT, 17 of whom had atrial fibrillation. 11 were also being treated continuously with other medication which interacted with OAT or interfered with other coagulation pathways. Such medication included: aspirin, dipyridamole, amiodarone, bezafibrate and allopurinol. Of 414 coagulation tests, 57% and 65% were in the therapeutic range in the high- and low-intensity OAT groups, respectively. There was no major bleeding event, but in 2 of 8 who bled, gastrointestinal bleeding led to hospitalization. Treatment was discontinued in 1 patient because of difficulties in achieving target INR, and in the 2 hospitalized for bleeding. The percentages of test results in, above and below the therapeutic range were similar to those in other large series, for both intensity regimens. We found that a significant proportion of patients were under chronic treatment with other medication which interacted with OAT. To estimate the rate of complications in primary care OAT, larger series are needed. We conclude that OAT can be given and monitored by the family physician, and that awareness of long and short term drug interactions with OAT is mandatory.