Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Steven Reid a Academic Department of Psychological Medicine,
Guy's, King's College, and St Thomas's Hospital School of Medicine
and Institute of Psychiatry, London SE5 8AZ, b Bromley Health Authority, Bromley BR2 7EH
Correspondence
to: S Reid steve.reid{at}kcl.ac.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To estimate the prevalence of medically
unexplained symptoms in patients who most frequently attend outpatient services.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study over three years with review of case notes.
Setting:
Secondary care services in the South Thames (West) NHS region.
Participants:
Outpatient attenders with new
appointments in 1993.
Main outcome measures:
Number of outpatient
appointments, and number of consultation episodes for medically
unexplained conditions.
Results:
Medical records of 361 of 400 sampled
frequent attenders were examined, and 971 consultation episodes were
recorded. Ninety seven (27%) had one or more consultation episodes in
which the condition was medically unexplained; 208 (21%) of the 971 consultation episodes were medically unexplained. Abdominal pain, chest
pain, headache, and back pain were commonly found to be medically unexplained.
Conclusions:
Medically unexplained symptoms present in most hospital specialties and account for a considerable proportion of
consultations by frequent attenders in secondary care.
|
What is already known on this topic
What this study adds
|
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A small proportion of patients attending outpatient clinics in secondary care attend frequently and are responsible for a high proportion of healthcare costs. 1 2 Early studies showed that many such patients consult for physical symptoms which, after extensive investigation, remain medically unexplained.3 These symptoms occur commonly in all medical settings, yet they remain poorly understood and are often persistent and disabling.4 There have been few studies of frequent attenders in secondary care. Previous work has been limited to single specialties and teaching hospitals5 or has focused on inpatient admissions.6
We examined the outpatient consultations of frequent attenders in
all the general hospitals across one regional health authority and
included both medical and surgical specialties. We estimated the
prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms in those patients who most
frequently attend outpatient services.
| |
Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
South Thames (West) NHS region has recorded outpatient hospital activity in computerised form since 1991. To identify frequent attenders we defined a population in which potential subjects were all patients in the region aged 18-65 years who had a new appointment to secondary medical or surgical care in 1993 (index appointments). We excluded specialties for specific conditions, such as obstetrics (but not gynaecology), oncology, and psychiatry.
We followed patients with index appointments over a three year period to assess their overall service use within the region by counting all outpatient appointments. The population was stratified by two age groups (18-45 years and 46-65 years). Frequent attenders were then defined as the top 5% of outpatient users in each age group.
We randomly selected 200 patients from the total in each age group (24 489 aged 18-45 years; 36 743 aged 46-65 years) for inclusion in the study. The study was approved by the local research ethics committee.
A consultation episode was defined as all appointments after referral
and was completed after discharge, death, or referral elsewhere. We
recorded details of the reason(s) for referral and identified
investigations and treatment received at each appointment. Finally, we
noted the diagnosis (if given) for each consultation episode and
determined whether the episode was medically unexplained, mixed
(evidence of both physical and psychological disorder), or factitious.
Criteria for a medically unexplained episode were that the patient
presented with physical symptoms, the patient received investigations
for these symptoms, and the investigations and clinical examination
revealed no abnormality or only abnormalities that were thought to be
trivial or incidental.
7 8
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of the 12 NHS trusts we contacted in the region, only one refused examination of its medical records. A total of 361 (90%) sets of case notes were traced and obtained for examination: 189 (95%) for patients aged 18-45 years and 172 (86%) for patients aged 46-65. In total 971 consultation episodes were recorded. The median number of referrals (consultation episodes) over the three year period was 2 (range 1-8) and the overall median number of appointments was 18 (range 13-45).
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the frequent attenders. Of the 361 patients, 97 (27%) had one or more medically unexplained episodes. Of the 971 consultation episodes, 164 (17%) were "definitely" medically unexplained, 44 (5%) were "probably" medically unexplained, 30 (3%) were mixed episodes, and 1 (0.1%) was recorded as a factitious disorder.
|
Table 2 shows the referral complaints divided into 30 categories and the number of consultation episodes stratified by age and the percentage that were medically unexplained. Medically unexplained symptoms occurred commonly in all of the specialties investigated with the exception of dermatology. Gastroenterology and neurology had a particularly high rate, with at least 50% of referrals remaining medically unexplained. More details are given on the BMJ's website.
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In this study of medically unexplained symptoms we found that such
symptoms are common in patients who frequently attend several secondary
care specialties. Most previous studies on this issue have focused on
primary care settings. By looking at secondary medical care, we have
used a population that has been extensively investigated, thus
affording a greater degree of confidence in the patients' diagnoses.
By including different hospitals and a range of specialties we were
able to capture a comprehensive record of healthcare usage, which is
important as these symptoms often involve more than one bodily system
and patients may be attending different clinics. The principal
methodological limitation was the retrospective use of medical records
for data collection. However, the most important information for the
purpose of this study
details of investigations and final
diagnosis
are generally well documented in hospital case notes. A
further limitation is that although the reliability of this method in
recognising medically unexplained symptoms has been
shown,7 there has been no evaluation of its validity.
Complaints that often remain medically unexplained in primary care and
in new patients attending clinics
abdominal pain, headache, and low
back pain
are also likely to remain medically unexplained in frequent
attenders. While some patients with unexplained symptoms are discharged
from secondary care after their assessment, many continue to attend,
are often referred on to another specialty, and become frequent
attenders in secondary care.
Medically unexplained symptoms are associated with high rates of
disability.9-11 Patients report poorer levels of physical and social functioning than those who receive a medical diagnosis and
spend between 1.3 and 4.9 days in bed each month compared with patients
with major medical problems, who average one day or
less.
9 12
The management of patients with unexplained
symptoms is perceived as unsatisfactory from the perspective of both
the patient and the physician.13 Also, patients may
undergo extensive investigation and medical treatment, which may not
only be inappropriate but also hazardous.14 Iatrogenic
factors such as inappropriate information, overinvestigation, and
overtreatment are common in the management of these
patients.
15 16
Avoidance of these factors forms the
mainstay of most advice on management.17 We have shown that medically unexplained symptoms account for a considerable proportion of presentations in frequent attenders in secondary care and
conclude that these patients should be considered a focus for attention.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank all of the NHS trusts who agreed to participate in this study and in particular the medical records staff who assisted in retrieval of case notes. We also thank Dr R Hooper for providing statistical advice and helpful comments on the paper.
Contributors: All authors were involved in the planning and design of the study. SR collated and analysed the data and was the principal writer of the paper. SW helped in interpretation of the data and writing of the paper. TC took part in the study design. MH participated in the analysis and interpretation of data and writing of the paper. SR, TC, and MH are guarantors.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Editorial by Turner
Funding: NHS Executive National Research and Development Programme.
Competing interests: None declared.
The full version of this paper
appears on the BMJ's website
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Zook CJ, Moore FD.
High-cost users of medical care.
N Engl J Med
1980;
302:
996-1002 |
| 2. |
Garfinkel SA, Riley GF, Iannacchinoe VG.
High-cost users of medical care.
Health Care Financing Review
1988;
9:
41-52 |
| 3. |
Wamoscher Z.
The returning patient: a survey of patients with high attendance rate.
J Coll Gen Pract
1966;
11:
166-173 |
| 4. |
Kroenke K, Mangelsdorff AD.
Common symptoms in ambulatory care: incidence, evaluation, therapy, and outcome.
Am J Med
1989;
86:
262-266 |
| 5. |
Bass C, Bond A, Gill D, Sharpe M.
Frequent attenders without organic disease in a gastroenterology clinic.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry
1999;
21:
30-38 |
| 6. |
Fink P.
The use of hospitalizations by persistent somatizing patients.
Psychol Med
1992;
22:
173-180 |
| 7. |
Reid S, Crayford T, Richards S, Nimnuan C, Hotopf M.
Recognition of medically unexplained symptoms do doctors agree?
J Psychosom Res
1999;
47:
483-485 |
| 8. |
Hotopf M, Mayou R, Wadsworth M, Wessely S.
Childhood risk factors for adults with medically unexplained symptoms: results from a national birth cohort study.
Am J Psychiatry
1999;
156:
1796-1800 |
| 9. |
Smith Jr GR, Monson RA, Ray DC.
Patients with multiple unexplained symptoms: their characteristics, functional health and health care utilization.
Arch Intern Med
1986;
146:
69-72 |
| 10. |
Katon W, Lin E, von Korff M, Russo J, Lipscomb P, Bush T.
Somatization: a spectrum of severity.
Am J Psychiatry
1991;
148:
34-40 |
| 11. |
Escobar JI, Burman MA, Karno M, Forsythe A, Golding JM.
Somatization in the community.
Arch Gen Psychiatry
1987;
44:
713-718 |
| 12. |
Wells KB, Stewart A, Hays RD, Burman A, Rogers W, Daniels M, et al.
The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the medical outcomes study.
JAMA
1989;
262:
914-919 |
| 13. |
Lin EHB, Katon W, von Korff M, Bush T, Lipscomb P, Russo J, et al.
Frustrating patients: physician and patient perspectives among distressed high users of medical services.
J Gen Intern Med
1991;
6:
241-246 |
| 14. |
Fink P.
Surgery and medical treatment in persistent somatizing patients.
J Psychosom Res
1992;
36:
439-447 |
| 15. |
Kouyanou K, Pither C, Wessely S.
Iatrogenic factors and chronic pain.
Psychosom Med
1997;
59:
597-604 |
| 16. |
Kouyanou K, Pither CE, Rabe-Hesketh S, Wessely S.
A comparative study of iatrogenesis, medication abuse, and psychiatric morbidity in chronic pain patients with and without medically unexplained symptoms.
Pain
1998;
76:
417-426 |
| 17. |
Wilkie A, Wessely S.
Patients with medically unexplained symptoms.
Br J Hosp Med
1994;
51:
421-427 |
(Accepted 21 December 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses