Search

Objectives: To determine whether an email triage system between general practitioners and a neurologist for new outpatient referrals is feasible, acceptable, efficient, safe, and effective. Methods: This was a prospective single cohort study on the interface between primary care practitioners and the neurology clinic of a district general hospital. Seventy six consecutive patients with neurological symptoms from nine GPs, for whom a specialist opinion was deemed necessary, were entered in the study. The number of participants managed without clinic attendance and the reduction in neurologist’s time compared with conventional consultation was measured, as was death, other specialist referral, and change in diagnosis in the 6 months after episode completion. The acceptability for GPs was ascertained by questionnaire. Results: Forty three per cent of participants required a clinic appointment, 45% were managed by email advice alone, and 12% by email plus investigations. GP satisfaction was high. Forty four per cent of the neurologist’s time was saved compared with conventional consultation. No deaths or significant changes in diagnosis were recorded during the 6 month follow up period. Conclusions: Email triage is feasible, acceptable to GPs, and safe. It has the potential for making the practice of neurologists more efficient, and this needs to be tested in a larger randomised study.

Aim—To identify and describe current methods of making health related research evidence accessible to general practice staV in the Northern and Yorkshire Region. Method—A postal survey questionnaire of general practice staV in the Northern and Yorkshire Region. Results—At least one completed questionnaire was obtained from 70% of the general practices surveyed, and the individual response rate to the survey was 45%. Just under 60% of all respondents reported having no access to the NHS internet and just under 50% also reported having no access to the internet. All respondents in this survey reported greater access to paper based information than to electronic databases. However, this research provides evidence of diVerential access to information resources between diVerent professions in general practice with GPs clearly having easier access than other professions to both paper based resources and electronic databases. 70% of all respondents said that they would need to be trained to use either a computer, the internet, or to search databases if the opportunity for easy access to any of these information services was available. Conclusions—At the time of this survey, general practices seemed to be struggling to set up the infrastructure and develop the skills that are necessary to make best use of available research evidence. In addition, there is a need for further investigation into the reasons why diVerent professions working in the same practice setting have diVerential access to information resources available in primary care. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:83‐89)