OBJECTIVES: Electronic health records (EHR) enable transmission and tracking of referrals between primary-care practitioners (PCPs) and subspecialists. We used an EHR to examine follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a large multispecialty VA facility. METHODS: We retrieved outpatient referrals to five subspecialties between October 2006 and December 2007, and queried the EHR to determine their status: completed, discontinued (returned to PCP), or unresolved (no action taken by subspecialist). All unresolved referrals, and random samples of discontinued and completed referrals were reviewed to determine whether subspecialists took follow-up actions (i.e., schedule appointments anytime in the future) within 30 days of referral-receipt. For referrals without timely follow-up, we determined whether inaction was supported by any predetermined justifiable reasons or associated with certain referral characteristics. We also reviewed if PCPs took the required action on returned information. RESULTS: Of 61,931 referrals, 22,535 were discontinued (36.4%), and 474 were unresolved (0.8%). We selected 412 discontinued referrals randomly for review. Of these, 52% lacked follow-up actions within 30 days. Appropriate justifications for inaction were documented in 69.8% (150/215) of those without action and included lack of prerequisite testing by the PCP and subspecialist opinion that no intervention was required despite referral. We estimated that at 30 days, 6.3% of all referrals were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up actions by subspecialists. Conversely, 7.4% of discontinued referrals returned to PCPs were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the EHR facilitates transmission of valuable information at the PCP-subspecialist interface, unexplained communication breakdowns in the referral process persist in a subset of cases.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Electronic health records (EHR) enable transmission and tracking of referrals between primary-care practitioners (PCPs) and subspecialists. We used an EHR to examine follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a large multispecialty VA facility. METHODS: We retrieved outpatient referrals to five subspecialties between October 2006 and December 2007, and queried the EHR to determine their status: completed, discontinued (returned to PCP), or unresolved (no action taken by subspecialist). All unresolved referrals, and random samples of discontinued and completed referrals were reviewed to determine whether subspecialists took follow-up actions (i.e., schedule appointments anytime in the future) within 30 days of referral-receipt. For referrals without timely follow-up, we determined whether inaction was supported by any predetermined justifiable reasons or associated with certain referral characteristics. We also reviewed if PCPs took the required action on returned information. RESULTS: Of 61,931 referrals, 22,535 were discontinued (36.4%), and 474 were unresolved (0.8%). We selected 412 discontinued referrals randomly for review. Of these, 52% lacked follow-up actions within 30 days. Appropriate justifications for inaction were documented in 69.8% (150/215) of those without action and included lack of prerequisite testing by the PCP and subspecialist opinion that no intervention was required despite referral. We estimated that at 30 days, 6.3% of all referrals were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up actions by subspecialists. Conversely, 7.4% of discontinued referrals returned to PCPs were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the EHR facilitates transmission of valuable information at the PCP-subspecialist interface, unexplained communication breakdowns in the referral process persist in a subset of cases.
Authors: Mark Linzer; Robert J Myerburg; Jean S Kutner; C Mel Wilcox; Eugene Oddone; Raphael J DeHoratius; Gerald V Naccarelli Journal: Am J Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Christopher J Stille; Thomas J McLaughlin; William A Primack; Kathleen M Mazor; Richard C Wasserman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: D F Sittig; T K Gandhi; M Franklin; M Turetsky; A J Sussman; D G Fairchild; D W Bates; A L Komaroff; J M Teich Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Judy E Kim-Hwang; Alice Hm Chen; Douglas S Bell; David Guzman; Hal F Yee; Margot B Kushel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Urmimala Sarkar; Doug Bonacum; William Strull; Christiane Spitzmueller; Nancy Jin; Andrea López; Traber Davis Giardina; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Michael L Barnett; Ateev Mehrotra; Joseph P Frolkis; Melissa Spinks; Casey Steiger; Brandon Hehir; Jeffrey O Greenberg; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Derek W Meeks; Amirhossein Takian; Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh; Nick Barber Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chanda K Ho; Christy K Boscardin; Nathaniel Gleason; Don Collado; Jonathan Terdiman; Norah A Terrault; Ralph Gonzales Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Archana Laxmisan; Dean F Sittig; Kenneth Pietz; Donna Espadas; Bhuvaneswari Krishnan; Hardeep Singh Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.983