When is a "free" registrar in clinic not free?
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 22187189.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1136/bmj.d7869.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To investigate whether using registrars (doctors undergoing higher specialist training, whose salary is reimbursed) rather than consultants in outpatient clinics saves money Development of a formula calculating the economic breakeven point and application to retrospective audit data from 273 outpatient consultations. General cardiology outpatient clinic in a secondary and tertiary referral NHS hospital. Outcomes Difference in probability of a registrar and a consultant making a diagnostic decision that completes a clinical episode. Use of UK costings for consultant salaries and outpatient attendances to determine the economic breakeven point. The formula showed that if a registrar's episode completing probability is 12 percentage points lower than that of a consultant, then using a registrar costs the hospital more. Real life data showed that episode completion probabilities are 43 percentage points lower for registrars than for consultants (26% versus 69%, 95% CI 32% to 54%, P<0.0001). It is wrong to assume that external reimbursement of registrar salaries makes them a money saving option for staffing clinics. The apparent service role of a registrar can be a disservice.
Medical subject headings
- Cardiology Service, Hospital
- Episode of Care
- Medical Staff, Hospital
- Outpatient Clinics, Hospital
- Referral and Consultation