Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:20:47.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quality Improvement Project: Referral Process for Adults With Suspected ADHD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Cassandra Streeter
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Horsham, United Kingdom
Stephanie Dankyi
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Horsham, United Kingdom
Isabelle Akin-Ojo*
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Horsham, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Twelve GP surgeries refer adults with suspected ADHD to Horsham Assessment and Treatment Service (ATS). Patients are referred by GPs via letter and an adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS). Letter contents are variable and some referrals are rejected. There is no gold standard or national guideline for what referral information is required. We used a combination of guidelines and advice from The Royal College of Psychiatrists, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and ADHD UK. Aims: to evaluate the current quality of the referrals, to obtain GP’' views on the referral process, to make the process more efficient and clearer, and with that improve patient experience.

Methods

A retrospective data collection method was used. 57 patients were referred between 31st August 2021 and 1st April 2022. We reviewed 54 referral letters (3 were excluded). Main information looked for: presenting difficulties, resultant impairments, confirmation some symptoms present in childhood, past medical history, family history and if an ASRS was attached. We sent a questionnaire to obtain GPs’ opinions on the referral process and how to improve this.

Results

Results of reviewing referral letters:

  • 89% of referrals explained the current difficulties

  • 52% described the resultant impairments

  • 61% of referrals mentioned if symptoms had been present in childhood

  • 91% of referrals contained past medical history and current medication

  • No referrals mentioned family history

  • 6% of referrals contained some physical health data

  • 85% of referrals to ATS were accepted; 13% rejected as ASRS not attached.

Results from GP questionnaires: 11 surveys were returned. Most GPs were not confident in making a referral or what information is required, and did not understand the referral process. GPs would like a referral form, a flowchart outlining the referral process and information for patients about ADHD assessment.

Conclusion

89% of referrals explained current difficulties. Just over half described the resultant impairments, and confirmed if there were symptoms in childhood. Most referrals contained past medical history. 6% contained some physical health data. Only 85% of referrals were accepted. GPs would like a referral form, a flowchart and information for patients.

Results were distributed to staff in ATS and we will distribute results to GPs. We have created a referral form and flowchart to make the referral process more efficient and clearer, and to improve patient experience. We will re-evaluate this after a few weeks, so we can compare with previous data collected.

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.