0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Codesigned standardised referral form: simplifying the complexity

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Referring providers are often critiqued for writing poor-quality referrals. This study characterised clinical referral guidelines and forms to understand which data consultant providers require. These data were then used to codesign an evidence-based, high-quality referral form.

          Methods

          This study used both observational and quality improvement approaches. Canadian referral guidelines were reviewed and summarised. Referral data fields from 150 randomly selected Ontario referral forms were categorised and counted. The referral guideline summary and referral data were then used by referring providers, consultant providers and administrators to codesign a referral form.

          Results

          Referral guidelines recommended 42 types of referral data be included in referrals. Referral data were categorised as patient demographics, provider demographics, reason for referral, clinical information and administrative information. The percentage of referral guidelines recommending inclusion of each type of referral data varied from 8% to 77%. Ontario referral forms requested 264 different types of referral data. Digital referral forms requested more referral data types than paper-based referral forms (55.0±10.6 vs 30.5±8.1; 95% CI p<0.01). A codesigned referral form was created across two sessions with 29 and 21 participants in each.

          Discussion

          Referral guidelines lack consistency and specificity, which makes writing high-quality referrals challenging. Digital referral forms tend to request more referral data than paper-based referrals, which creates administrative burdens for referring and consultant providers. We created the first codesigned referral form with referring providers, consultant providers and administrators. We recommend clinical adoption of this form to improve referral quality and minimise administrative burdens.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Allocation of Physician Time in Ambulatory Practice: A Time and Motion Study in 4 Specialties.

          Little is known about how physician time is allocated in ambulatory care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Communication between general practitioners and consultants: what should their letters contain?

            To canvass the views of all general practitioners and consultants working in Newcastle upon Tyne on the content of referral letters and replies, the feasibility of standardising certain aspects of referral letters, and the use of communications data for audit purposes. A postal questionnaire was sent to all general practitioners and consultants in Newcastle upon Tyne in May 1991. Questions were asked about the clinical and administrative content of letters, the utility of standard categories to state the reason for referral, the idea of using letters for feedback purposes, and communications as a potential topic for professionally led audit. Area served by Newcastle upon Tyne Family Health Services Authority and District Health Authority. Replies were received from 274 (77%) doctors (115 general practitioners and 159 consultants). A majority (225; 82%) were in favour of items defined as "always important" forming a minimum requirement for referral letters and for consultants' replies. Using standardised categories to state the reason for referral was not endorsed: 102 (89%) general practitioners and 132 (83%) consultants preferred referrers to use their own words. Using referral communications to provide feedback was less popular with consultants (54; 34%) than general practitioners (72; 63%). Finally, a majority of doctors (179; 65%) were in favour of using written communications as a topic for professionally led audit. A high degree of consensus exists among clinicians about the content of referral communications. Although doctors may still reject the concept of standardised communications, they have unambiguously endorsed a standard for communication that they can aspire to, and they are prepared to use it as a yardstick for their actual performance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Referrals to hospital-based rheumatology and orthopaedic services: seeking direction.

              While both community and hospital-based services strive to cope with the considerable burden posed by musculoskeletal disorders, multidisciplinary-led, integrated approaches are frequently lacking. It has been suggested that referrals to musculoskeletal services are frequently misdirected to an orthopaedic surgeon when non-surgical advice/intervention is warranted, reducing the efficiency of hospital-based services and potentially affecting quality of care. Triage of referrals may help to prevent this, but this system is dependent upon accurate and thorough information being provided in the referral letter. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of triage of musculoskeletal referrals to rheumatology and orthopaedic services at a large teaching hospital. One thousand and eighty-seven consecutive referral letters to orthopaedic and rheumatology services were reviewed by a consultant rheumatologist. Letters were assessed for both basic content and the appropriate destination for that referral. In order to evaluate the accuracy of the assessor's prediction of the most appropriate destination of the referrals, the number of patients who were ultimately listed for surgical intervention was calculated in a random sample of orthopaedic referrals, 1 yr after the initial hospital appointment was requested. Six hundred and eighty-two referrals were to orthopaedics and 393 to rheumatology. Referrals relating to spinal pain were excluded. The content of letters was scant and no diagnosis was volunteered in 63.4% of referrals. Fifty-eight per cent of referrals to orthopaedics were considered appropriate; 27% of referrals to orthopaedics were defined as 'should definitely see a rheumatologist' (12%) or 'should probably see a rheumatologist' (15%). Fifteen per cent of referrals to orthopaedics were defined as 'could see either a surgeon or a rheumatologist'. Ninety-four per cent of referrals to rheumatology were defined as appropriate, 2% were not and 4% were defined as 'could see either a surgeon or a rheumatologist'. One year later, in a random sample of 373 of the orthopaedic referrals, 42.2% of those who were categorized as 'should see surgeon' and 9.7% of the 'should see a physician' group were listed for surgical intervention. Many referrals to hospital-based musculoskeletal services are likely to be misdirected. Integrated referral and care pathways are required for efficient and optimal care of patients with musculoskeletal diseases. The development of such pathways will require significant support, education and training for general practitioners.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Health Care Inform
                BMJ Health Care Inform
                bmjhci
                bmjhci
                BMJ Health & Care Informatics
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2632-1009
                2024
                19 June 2024
                : 31
                : 1
                : e100926
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentFamily Medicine , Ringgold_3710McMaster University , Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ] Ringgold_3710McMaster University , Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ] St Joseph's Health Care London , London, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ] Ringgold_6221Western University , London, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ] Middlesex London Ontario Health Team , London, Ontario, Canada
                [6 ] Ontario Health , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [7 ] eHealth Centre of Excellence , Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Scott Laing; scottwlaing@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9704-459X
                Article
                bmjhci-2023-100926
                10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100926
                11191734
                38901862
                23b9fe09-c38e-4dda-bcbf-c7906fc890df
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 05 October 2023
                : 01 June 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Ontario Health;
                Award ID: Central Waitlist Management Fund
                Funded by: eHealth Centre of Excellence;
                Award ID: Operating Funds
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                primary health care,medical records,standard of care,records,secondary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article