Literature DB >> 14748911

Audit of consultant physicians' reply letters for referrals to clinics in a tertiary teaching hospital.

I A Scott1, C A Mitchell, E Logan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Doctors referring patients to consultant physicians seek reply letters which both educate and assist in ongoing patient management. Highly desirable attributes in specialist letters include clearly stated and justified: (i) diagnostic formulations, (ii) management regimens, (iii) use of clinical investigations, (iv) prognostic statements, (v) contingency plans and (vi) follow-up arrangements. AIM: To explicitly evaluate the quality of reply letters for new patients referred to clinics at a tertiary teaching hospital.
METHODS: Letters were sampled from outpatient clinics of 10 different medical specialties at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Reply letters for new patient referrals between 1 August 2000 and 31 October 2000 were retrieved, from which data were abstracted to calculate the proportion of letters satisfying prespecified quality attributes.
RESULTS: Of 297 new patient referrals, reply letters were retrieved for 204 (69%). Of these, 147 (72%) referrals were accompanied by a referral letter, mostly (113/147; 77%) from general practitioners. For 120 referrals involving diagnostic issues, 69 (56%) letters stated a diagnostic formulation. Of 114 letters recommending further clinical investigations, 61 (53%) described a rationale for such testing. In 125 cases where therapy was a key issue, 83 (66%) letters recommended changes to current treatment for which reasons were specified in 46 (55%) cases, and contingency plans provided in 13 (16%). Prognosis was mentioned in only 18 (9%) cases. Follow-up arrangements were detailed in 123 (60%) letters. Assessments of patient understanding and likely adherence to therapy were stated in less than 15% of -letters.
CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist for improving quality of consultant physicians' reply letters in terms of greater use of problem lists, contingency plans, prognostic statements and patient-centred assessments, as well as more frequent enunciation of consultants' reasoning behind requests for further tests and changes to current management. Use of structured letter templates may facilitate more consistent inclusion of key information to referring doctors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14748911     DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0903.2004.00424.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  6 in total

1.  Rationale and model for integrating the pharmacist into the outpatient referral-consultation process.

Authors:  Erin Keely; Corey Tsang; Clare Liddy; Barbara Farrell; Barry Power; Cynthia Way
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Valued Components of a Consultant Letter from Referring Physicians' Perspective: a Systematic Literature Synthesis.

Authors:  Arjun H Rash; Robert Sheldon; Maoliosa Donald; Cindy Eronmwon; Vikas P Kuriachan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Outcome progress letter types: parent and physician preferences for letters from pediatric mental health services.

Authors:  Patricia Lingley-Pottie; Teresa Janz; Patrick J McGrath; Charles Cunningham; Cathy MacLean
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 4.  Enhancing continuity of information: essential components of consultation reports.

Authors:  Whitney Berta; Jan Barnsley; Jeff Bloom; Rhonda Cockerill; Dave Davis; Liisa Jaakkimainen; Anne Marie Mior; Yves Talbot; Eugene Vayda
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Referral letter and reply form.

Authors:  Beuy Joob; Viroj Wiwanitkit
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2014-07

6.  Challenges in multidisciplinary cancer care among general surgeons in Canada.

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Frances C Wright; Dave Davis; Robin S McLeod; David R Urbach
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-12-22       Impact factor: 2.796

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.