Search

Background: Administrative burdens have been identified as a major issue impacting patient care, professional practice, and the overall efficiency of healthcare systems. The aim of this study is to assess the administrative burden faced by Italian hematologists. Methods: A cross-sectional survey that included both closed-ended quantitative questions and open-ended free text answer options was administered to 1,570 hematologists working with malignancies and members of Italian GIMEMA Foundation – Franco Mandelli ONLUS and the Italian Linfomi Foundation (FIL). The survey was conducted online from May 24 to June 30, 2023. Descriptive statistics were computed for the quantitative data to clearly summarize the responses and descriptive analysis of free text responses was carried out. Results: Surveyed hematologists spend an average of 47.07% of their time on administrative tasks, with 63.22% (n = 110) of respondents reporting spending at least half of their time on these activities. More than half (57.47%, n = 100) reported that “Patient care” is the medical task most affected by a lack of time. Additionally, 55.17% (n = 96) reported experiencing burnout in the past 6 months, with filling out “Forms” being identified as the top contributing administrative task by 27.59% (n = 48) of respondents, followed by “Scheduling” (24.71%, n = 43) and “Managing IT system failures” (21.84%, n = 38). Nearly half of the surveyed hematologists (45.40%, n = = 79) identified patient care as the top priority requiring more time. Conclusions: The study confirms that the administrative workload of hematologists has a significant impact on patient care, communication, and burnout risk, reducing the time available for patient care, leading to exhaustion and concern about clinical errors.

Introduction: Anemia is a potentially reversible condition in early chronic kidney disease (CKD) that requires timely intervention. General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in recognizing CKD. A new Nephrology Referral Form (NRF) was developed and tested in the Italian setting. Methods: This mixed-methods survey, conducted between 2021 and 2022, introduced the NRF through focus group discussions involving a scientific committee. The NRF was tested in a 6-month trial involving 24 GPs each from Lazio and Puglia regions. GPs provided feedback on the use of the NRF in clinical practice through a questionnaire sent via Microsoft Form. The data were analyzed descriptively. Results: After 6 months, 41.67% of the GPs were using the NRF at least once a week. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were common triggers for NRF assessments. GPs overwhelmingly agreed (96%) on the NRF’s utility in identifying CKD cases, with 92% citing its effectiveness in diagnosing well-defined cases. The NRF facilitated specialist referrals, with 83% of GPs reporting increased referrals compared to the prior 6 months. Feedback underscored the NRF’s positive impact, suggesting improvements such as additional referral centers, regional/national networks, enhanced GP training, and increased collaboration. Conclusion: GPs regularly used the NRF to identify and diagnose cases of CKD, streamlining the referral process and increasing referrals to specialists. Feedback emphasized the NRF’s positive impact and highlighted its potential as a valuable tool for enhancing early CKD detection, interventions, and fostering multidisciplinary management in primary care for better patient outcomes.