Abstract
We studied whether ambulatory utilization review (UR) alters how many patients internal medicine residents refer to subspecialists, and whether the effect persists without reinforcement. We compared referral rates of residents from a firm that held UR meetings (intervention firm residents, n = 20) with those of residents from a firm that did not (control firm residents, n = 21). We then compared referral rates of 17 intervention firm residents while they were participating in UR with their rates after not participating for at least 4 weeks. Intervention firm residents submitted 30% fewer referrals than control firm residents (9% vs 13%, p = .05). However, the effect was short-lived; after 4 weeks without UR, intervention firm resident referral rates were similar to control firm referral rates.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 778-780 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Journal of General Internal Medicine |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1998 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Ambulatory utilization review
- Internal medicine residents
- Referral to subspecialists
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Internal Medicine
Cite this
Effect of ambulatory utilization review on referrals from generalists to specialists. / Grimm, Cordelia T.; Gomez, Arthur G.
In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 11, 1998, p. 778-780.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of ambulatory utilization review on referrals from generalists to specialists
AU - Grimm, Cordelia T.
AU - Gomez, Arthur G.
PY - 1998
Y1 - 1998
N2 - We studied whether ambulatory utilization review (UR) alters how many patients internal medicine residents refer to subspecialists, and whether the effect persists without reinforcement. We compared referral rates of residents from a firm that held UR meetings (intervention firm residents, n = 20) with those of residents from a firm that did not (control firm residents, n = 21). We then compared referral rates of 17 intervention firm residents while they were participating in UR with their rates after not participating for at least 4 weeks. Intervention firm residents submitted 30% fewer referrals than control firm residents (9% vs 13%, p = .05). However, the effect was short-lived; after 4 weeks without UR, intervention firm resident referral rates were similar to control firm referral rates.
AB - We studied whether ambulatory utilization review (UR) alters how many patients internal medicine residents refer to subspecialists, and whether the effect persists without reinforcement. We compared referral rates of residents from a firm that held UR meetings (intervention firm residents, n = 20) with those of residents from a firm that did not (control firm residents, n = 21). We then compared referral rates of 17 intervention firm residents while they were participating in UR with their rates after not participating for at least 4 weeks. Intervention firm residents submitted 30% fewer referrals than control firm residents (9% vs 13%, p = .05). However, the effect was short-lived; after 4 weeks without UR, intervention firm resident referral rates were similar to control firm referral rates.
KW - Ambulatory utilization review
KW - Internal medicine residents
KW - Referral to subspecialists
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031724903&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031724903&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00232.x
DO - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00232.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 9824526
AN - SCOPUS:0031724903
VL - 13
SP - 778
EP - 780
JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine
JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine
SN - 0884-8734
IS - 11
ER -