| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 15
| Issue : 2 | Page : 47-51 |
|
|
Pattern of in-patient neurologic review: An experience from a Tertiary Hospital North-Western Nigeria
Aliyu Ibrahim1, Lukman Femi Owolabi1, Baba Maiyaki Musa1, Salisu Aliyu2, Musbahu Rabiu1, Ahmed Maifada Yakasai3
1 Department of Medicine, Neurology Unit, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria
2 Department of Medicine, Katsina General Hospital, Katsina, Nigeria
3 Infectious Disease Unit, Public Health and Diagnostic Institute, College of Medical Sciences Northwestern University, Kano, Nigeria
Correspondence Address:
Aliyu Ibrahim
Department of Medicine, Neurology Unit, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Bayero University Kano, PMB 3452, Kano
Nigeria
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1596-3519.179734
|
|
|
Background: Increase in neurologic diseases burden has increased the demand for neurology services globally, despite the shortcomings of shortage and maldistribution of neurologists worldwide, including Sub-Saharan Africa. This has placed significant pressure on the few available neurologists to provide optimal and effective services in our resource-challenged settings.
Methods: Neurology referrals were prospectively reviewed over a period of 3 months. Sociodemographic characteristics of the patients, the initial diagnosis by the requesting team, the reasons for the consult/referral, the requesting personnel, duration of hospital stay before request, the time interval between receiving the request and review, the working and final diagnosis after the review, and the diagnostic outcome of neurologic review were analyzed using Predictive Analytics Software® version 18.0.0 for Windows (Chicago, Illinois, USA).
Results: Fifty-three hand written in-patient requests were reviewed over the period of study given an average rate of 4.4/week. The mean age was 50.8 ± 16.1 years, and the median length of stay before a review was 1 day (interquartile range: 1–2.5 days). Diagnostic outcome of the reviews were; new diagnoses in 4 (11.3%), the incorrect diagnosis changed in 8 (15.1%), contribution to the differential diagnosis in 15 (28.3%), and contribution to management plans in 24 (45.3%) patients. The association between diagnostic outcomes and mortality in our study was not statistically significant (χ2 = 6.66, P = 0.08).
Conclusion: Our study showed that in-patient neurologic reviews led to significant improvement in diagnostic and management plans. Appropriate policy guidelines should focus more on efficient ways of maximizing benefits of these reviews to patients without overburdening the few available neurologists in our environment. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
