Literature DB >> 12442881

GP letter writing in colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.

Moyez Jiwa1, Jennifer Burr.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The usual mode of communication with the specialist in the UK is a referral letter. Letters now primarily document the GPs' concerns for the patient and are no longer required to persuade the specialist to offer an appointment. The content of referral letters from GPs has failed to satisfy specialists responding to a series of surveys. Evidence suggests that GPs who improve their letters to specialists also refer more cases with significant pathology. AIMS: The aims of this research are to explore the factors that may influence GPs in writing the referral letter when consulting patients presenting with lower bowel symptoms.
METHODS: A convenience sample of twelve GPs was interviewed in Nottinghamshire and inner city Sheffield practices. A framework approach was utilised in the analysis of data. Data from the interviews followed the prescribed steps, including: familiarisation, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting and mapping, and interpretation.
RESULTS: The thematic framework reflected four major themes. These were: (1) the nature and content of referral letters, (2) knowledge about colorectal cancer, (3) issues relating to the quality of referral letters in colorectal cases and (4) factors that effect the use of guidelines for referral.
CONCLUSIONS: GPs only have very short consultations in which to address many and complex issues. Pre-referral assessment in colorectal cases includes intimate examination of the patient. Therefore the writing of the letter of referral is often postponed until long after the patient has left the GP's office. Some GPs do not believe the consultant reads the letter of referral. However, GPs are keen to provide best care and welcome feedback about the quality of their letters. They acknowledge the responsibility to communicate with colleagues effectively and have differing ideas about what constitutes an adequate referral letter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12442881     DOI: 10.1185/030079902125000886

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  7 in total

1.  Strengths and weaknesses of electronic referral: comparison of data content and clinical value of electronic and paper referrals in dermatology.

Authors:  Lindsay J Shaw; David A R de Berker
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Fast track referral for cancer.

Authors:  Moyez Jiwa; Christobel Saunders
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-08-11

3.  Impact of referral letters on scheduling of hospital appointments: a randomised control trial.

Authors:  Moyez Jiwa; Xingqiong Meng; Carolyn O'Shea; Parker Magin; Ann Dadich; Vinita Pillai
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  Improving quality of referral letters from primary to secondary care: a literature review and discussion paper.

Authors:  Patrick Tobin-Schnittger; Jane O'Doherty; Ray O'Connor; Andrew O'Regan
Journal:  Prim Health Care Res Dev       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 1.458

5.  Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.

Authors:  Moyez Jiwa; Stephen Walters; Nigel Mathers
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 6.  Quality indicators for the referral process from primary to specialised mental health care: an explorative study in accordance with the RAND appropriateness method.

Authors:  Miriam Hartveit; Kris Vanhaecht; Olav Thorsen; Eva Biringer; Kjell Haug; Aslak Aslaksen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Referring patients to specialists: a structured vignette survey of Australian and British GPs.

Authors:  Moyez Jiwa; Michael Gordon; Hayley Arnet; Hooi Ee; Max Bulsara; Brigitte Colwell
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 2.497

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.