Elements required

[michaeledwardmarks]

• Screen for non-ID doctor (@GabPoll EDIT: @michaeledwardmarks i presume you mean a viewable page, not a screening process)
• Ability to select what kind of non-ID doctor you are
• Key fields for all referrals (Demographics, Location ?Diagnosis)
• Potentially extra fields for some pathways

TBC:
Should the referral appear straight on to a list?
Should the referral go on a landing page?

[GabPoll]

Agree.

Preference for simplification at first pass - i.e. just refer straight to list. From there you can rapidly remove / dismiss in ward round if not appropriate or no action needed. Otherwise you're in the realms of MDT co-ordinator. Defo can review if no. of inappropriate referrals rises, but may just be addressed by discussion with team - e.g. the filtering may occur with ortho FY1 talking to ortho SpR before referring to micro meeting.

[michaeledwardmarks]

I'm not in favour of direct add personally.
As someone who writes the list I want control over who is on my list.

[GabPoll]

I must say i disagree, but depends on use case i think. I can see how one would want complete control over an inpatient list. However, for a liaison service, the referrals often form the basis of discussion and results to look up - i.e. in essence a to do list.

I think this depends on the workflow of the Use Case. In #1 & #3, direct add would work fine - it's essentially what happens at the moment. Perhaps potentially same for #5. For #2 I can see how would need more control - but could they not just go directly to OPAT referrals list and then accepted or refused from there? Refusal perhaps prompting email to referring team?

One for the end users to decide I think. @jonnylambourne, thoughts welcome from you as well please.

[michaeledwardmarks]

@GabPoll
Not sure we really disagree
My point is really the same as yours - I think the fact that the workflow varies between the use cases.
In some situations your first comment " just refer straight to list." is correct but I don't think this should be standard. We should decide for each scenario.

[GabPoll]

ok great. Glad we agree then! :)

I guess important conclusion from this discussion is that this is an option that needs to be specifically spelled out to each service that wants a referral portal.

I'm also assuming @davidmiller that there would be distinctions then in workload for you - e.g. add straight to list may be simpler to design than creating a landing page.

[davidmiller]

I think that the components of a referral route are :

• Name of route (Refer to Team)

For new episodes/patients:

• Fields required for route (Demographics)
• Optional fields for route ( Location?, Diagnosis?)

For existing patients:

• Do we dual-tag or do we copy to a new episode?
• If we copy, which fields to copy
• Named target team we're referring to

I think this caters for both cases - e.g. you either create a new ID Referrals team/list, or you target ID Inpatients directly. This way we use a referral list as the "landing page" && the triaging doctor gets an accept/reject flow that moves from ID Referrals to ID Inpatients or whatever.

[davidmiller]

@michaeledwardmarks "Ability to select what kind of non-id doctor you are" - not sure what you mean here?

[michaeledwardmarks]

Ability to select what kind of non-id doctor you are == Name of route (Refer to Team)
e.g
I'm the orthopaedic doctor and I'm referring to OPAT
vs
I'm the orthopaedic doctor and I'm referring to the Micro-Ortho MDT

[GabPoll]

@davidmiller the workflow might hinge quite a bit on each service. It depends what happens to patient referred - do they go onto a list or into a ward round? This goes back a bit to discussion of how a ward round needs to enhance current functionality (may have written about this before).

For example, if ortho patients are reviewed using the micro-ortho list, then a referred patient can just be tagged micro-ortho and you're done. However, if a referred patient gets moved onto a micro-ortho ward round, then that needs to be handled differently - i prefer this latter scenario because it allows you to have multiple patients on a list, not all of which you'll be reviewing on every round, and it puts responsibility on the referring team to ask for any one patient to be reviewed.