Prioritisation of vascular outpatient appointments cannot be based on referral letters alone

Background: Vascular referrals include patients with conditions varying from varicose veins of cosmetic nuisance to patients with critical ischaemia, transient ischaemic attacks and abdominal aortic aneurysms. A large number of such referrals are received each week from general practitioners. It is important to prioritise patients with conditions that need to be dealt with quickly. Objective: We prospectively reviewed referral letters to two vascular units, one in South Wales and one in the Oxford region to assess whether prioritisation can be made on the basis of referral letters. Material and methods: All GP referral letters were studied for four months. Only patients with lower limb ischaemic symptoms were included. Degree of urgency requested by the GP was also noted. Results: Of 174 referrals for potential lower limb ischaemia analysed, 145 (83%) proved to be due to peripheral vascular disease. Of these 145 referrals, 72% were referred for claudication. Only 37% and 13% respectively mentioned claudication distance and/or rest pain. Risk factors with reference to diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, ischaemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease and smoking were made in 19%, 43%, 23%, 23%, 10%, 14%, 31% of letters respectively. Clinical signs were poorly documented, with 90% of referrals failing to mention presence or absence of critical ischaemic signs. The GP's own assessment of urgency was not stated in 66% of letters, without which only 3% of patients were seen in the clinic within four weeks, compared with 22% in those in whom urgency was stated. Six per cent of patients when reviewed in outpatients were found to have sufficiently severe symptoms to warrant immediate admission. Regional variation was observed with 57% of Royal Glamorgan Hospital referral letters documenting degree of urgency compared with only 23% of Royal Berkshire Hospital letters (p=