British Homeopathic Journal (2000) 89, Suppl 1, S45 ß 2000 Macmillan Publishers Ltd All rights reserved 0007±0785/00 $15.00 www.nature.com/bhj
Patient bene®t survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital 1997 A Clover* Kent and Sussex Weald NHS Trust, Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital, Church Road, Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1JU, UK
Table 1 Total number of completed questionnaires 1372
To assess the range of diagnoses presented by patients attending the department for homoeopathic medicine in Tunbridge Wells. To review patients' assessments of their responses to the treatment prescribed and to assist replies to general practitioners seeking guidance on who to refer for consultation.
Table 2 The main diagnoses presented by patients Dermatology Musculoskeletal Malignant Respiratory Ear, Nose,Throat 17%
Table 3 Number of patients reporting positive bene®t
Methods All patients attending the department for a follow-up appointment throughout 1997 were asked to complete a short questionnaire with the clinic clerk after their consultation. They were asked to assess their own response to treatment on a scale: 3 much better; 2 moderately better; 1 slightly better; 0 unchanged; 71 slightly worse; 72 moderately worse; 72 much worse.
Result More details of the range of presenting complaints and the reported responses will be presented in the conference. As an introduction, these (see Table 3) are the assessments from patients with the predominant diagnoses in the survey period and the percentage of patients from that diagnostic group reporting positive bene®t, 3, 2 or 1.
*Correspondence: Dr A Clover, Consultant Homeopathic Physician, Kent and Sussex Weald NHS Trust, Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital, Church Road, Tunbridge Wells TN1 1JU, UK.
Eczema 80% Osteoarthritis 79%
Psoriasis 68% Acne 72% Rheumatoid arthritis 80% Chronic back pain 84% Carcinoma of breast ± Carcinoma of breast: hot ¯ushes 80% depression=anxiety 92% Asthma 67% Chronic Catarrh 72% Hay fever 71%
Recommendations The more detailed review of diagnoses and assessments of response from this survey, that will be presented to the conference, might at ®rst appear to contradict the requirement that homeopathic prescribing is guided by the overall pro®le presented by a patient, and is not merely tied to a diagnostic term. We may however still refer to the diagnosis whilst ourselves remembering that for every patient we are seeking a `kind of ' catarrh, or psoriasis, or whatever term is applied: every patient presents that process in an individual manner. Seen this way we share these ®gure in the hope that they will assist a response to colleagues asking who else to refer for homeopathic treatment.