Literature DB >> 26043268

Mutual perception of communication between general practitioners and hospital-based specialists.

P Vermeir1, D Vandijck, S Degroote, D Ommeslag, M Van De Putte, S Heytens, J Reniers, I Hanoulle, R Peleman, D Vogelaers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Communication between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists is an important aspect of qualitative care. Efficient communication exchange is essential and key in guaranteeing continuity of care. Inefficient communication is related to several negative outcomes, including patient harm. This study aimed to investigate the perception of GPs and hospital-based specialists in Belgium of the quality of their mutual communication.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among GPs and specialists. Participants were asked to complete a validated questionnaire on several aspects of their mutual communication.
RESULTS: Response rates of 17.9% (343/1.912) for GPs and 17.3% (392/2.263) for specialists were obtained. Both specialists and GPs qualify their mutual telephone accessibility as suboptimal. Specialists think poorly of the GP referral letter, in contrast to GP perception. Eighty per cent of the GPs feel that specialists address their questions appropriately; specialists have a similar perception of their own performance. According to 16.7% of the specialists, GPs not always follow their recommendations. Contrarily, GPs rate their compliance much higher (90.7%). Less than half of the GPs feel that the specialists' letter arrives on time, whereas specialists have a different and a more positive perception.
CONCLUSIONS: GPs and specialists disagree on several aspects of their mutual communication. These include the perception of accessibility, in both directions, and of the timeliness of written communication. Feedback is positively appreciated, again in both directions. Nevertheless, specialists feel that uptake of their recommendations is insufficient. Hence, there may remain significant room for improvement, which could contribute significantly to continuity of care and patient safety.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Communication; Health care; Patient safety; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26043268     DOI: 10.1179/2295333715Y.0000000032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Clin Belg        ISSN: 1784-3286            Impact factor:   1.264


  3 in total

1.  Determinants of physician networks: an ethnographic study examining the processes that inform patterns of collaboration and referral decision-making among physicians.

Authors:  Patrick Kierkegaard; Jason Owen-Smith
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Effectiveness of a specialist palliative home care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference compared with usual care among patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: protocol for the multicentre KOPAL cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Gabriella Marx; Tina Mallon; Nadine Janis Pohontsch; Franziska Schade; Judith Dams; Manuel Zimansky; Thomas Asendorf; Silke Böttcher; Christiane A Mueller; Michael Freitag; Eva Hummers; Hendrik van den Bussche; Ingmar Schäfer; Hans-Helmut König; Stephanie Stiel; Nils Schneider; Friedemann Nauck; Tim Friede; Martin Scherer
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  Understanding communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process in Latin America: a cross-sectional study on the use of clinical correspondence in public healthcare networks of six countries.

Authors:  Ingrid Vargas; Irene Garcia-Subirats; Amparo-Susana Mogollón-Pérez; Marina Ferreira-de-Medeiros-Mendes; Pamela Eguiguren; Angelica-Ivonne Cisneros; María-Cecilia Muruaga; Fernando Bertolotto; María-Luisa Vázquez
Journal:  Health Policy Plan       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.344

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.