BACKGROUND: Effective communication is vital for optimal medical consultation, but there is little current information about physician preferences for effective consultation. METHODS: We invited physicians with at least one post-graduate year of experience at four Minnesota teaching hospitals to complete a 16-question Internet questionnaire about inpatient consultations. RESULTS: E-mail requests were received by an estimated 651 physicians. Questionnaires were completed by 323 (50%). Of these, 54% had completed training >5 years before, 17% had completed training <5 years before, and 30% were residents or fellows. Three elements were considered essential in consultation requests by most respondents: the specific question to be addressed (94%), whom to call with the response (68%), and consultation urgency (66%). In the consultation note, 71% of subjects placed high importance on simple, concise recommendations and 64% on the rationale behind them, while only 7% placed high importance on citing references. Most (69%) preferred that assessments and recommendations be written in bulleted or numbered format. A plurality (48%) preferred that assessments and recommendations be separated. Most placed high value on recommendations regarding drug therapy that specify dose (80%), duration (80%), and generic medication name (62%). Requesters placed greater importance than consultants (87% vs. 65%, respectively, P = 0.004) on recommendations that included duration of therapy. The majority (63%) stated that telephone requests were needed for emergent or urgent consultations. Those who usually requested consultations were more likely than those who usually responded to consultation requests to prefer telephone requests for routine consultations (43% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians agreed on many essential elements for effective consultations. These results should guide efforts to improve communication in the consultation process and design electronic medical record systems.
BACKGROUND: Effective communication is vital for optimal medical consultation, but there is little current information about physician preferences for effective consultation. METHODS: We invited physicians with at least one post-graduate year of experience at four Minnesota teaching hospitals to complete a 16-question Internet questionnaire about inpatient consultations. RESULTS: E-mail requests were received by an estimated 651 physicians. Questionnaires were completed by 323 (50%). Of these, 54% had completed training >5 years before, 17% had completed training <5 years before, and 30% were residents or fellows. Three elements were considered essential in consultation requests by most respondents: the specific question to be addressed (94%), whom to call with the response (68%), and consultation urgency (66%). In the consultation note, 71% of subjects placed high importance on simple, concise recommendations and 64% on the rationale behind them, while only 7% placed high importance on citing references. Most (69%) preferred that assessments and recommendations be written in bulleted or numbered format. A plurality (48%) preferred that assessments and recommendations be separated. Most placed high value on recommendations regarding drug therapy that specify dose (80%), duration (80%), and generic medication name (62%). Requesters placed greater importance than consultants (87% vs. 65%, respectively, P = 0.004) on recommendations that included duration of therapy. The majority (63%) stated that telephone requests were needed for emergent or urgent consultations. Those who usually requested consultations were more likely than those who usually responded to consultation requests to prefer telephone requests for routine consultations (43% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians agreed on many essential elements for effective consultations. These results should guide efforts to improve communication in the consultation process and design electronic medical record systems.
Authors: Louis Sibert; Azzouz Lachkar; Philippe Grise; Bernard Charlin; Joël Lechevallier; Jacques Weber Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Evelyn Lo; Katayoun Rezai; Arthur T Evans; Miguel G Madariaga; Martin Phillips; Wahab Brobbey; David N Schwartz; Yue Wang; Robert A Weinstein; Gordon M Trenholme Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: J J Vehreschild; G Morgen; O A Cornely; P Hartmann; S Koch; W Kalka-Moll; C Wyen; M J G T Vehreschild; C Lehmann; D Gillor; H Seifert; G Kremer; G Fätkenheuer; N Jung Journal: Infection Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Stephanie D Roche; Alyse M Reichheld; Nicholas Demosthenes; Anna C Johansson; Michael D Howell; Michael N Cocchi; Bruce E Landon; Jennifer P Stevens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.240