2014
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14x680509
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of referral letters on scheduling of hospital appointments: a randomised control trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, there is possible bias whereby more proactive GPs may be inclined to use the referral templates and thereby skew results. Second, adherence to the referral template may be variable depending on workload and time constraints Jiwa et al (2014) Australia, 102 GPs Quantitative study using single-blind, parallel-groups, controlled design with a 1:1 randomisation used to evaluate whether specialists are more confident about scheduling appointments when they receive more information in referral letters This paper took into account that there was no doctor-patient interaction as actors are used to play the role of the patient. In phase one, GPs were shown vignettes of an actor-patient performing a monologue and phase two, the intervention group used the referral software and the control group did not.…”
Section: Review Of Referrals By Triaging Gps Who Gave Feedback To Refmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, there is possible bias whereby more proactive GPs may be inclined to use the referral templates and thereby skew results. Second, adherence to the referral template may be variable depending on workload and time constraints Jiwa et al (2014) Australia, 102 GPs Quantitative study using single-blind, parallel-groups, controlled design with a 1:1 randomisation used to evaluate whether specialists are more confident about scheduling appointments when they receive more information in referral letters This paper took into account that there was no doctor-patient interaction as actors are used to play the role of the patient. In phase one, GPs were shown vignettes of an actor-patient performing a monologue and phase two, the intervention group used the referral software and the control group did not.…”
Section: Review Of Referrals By Triaging Gps Who Gave Feedback To Refmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evans (2009) 4 Improvement in referral quality and reducing inappropriate demand Xiang et al (2013) 3 Improvement in referral quality and decisions made will be more accurate Elwyn et al (2007) 3 Improving the quality of referrals and reducing demand Templates Haley et al (2015) 3 Improvement in documentation Rokstad et al (2013) 4 Improvement in referral quality and in time efficiency by the specialist reviewing the letters Wahlberg et al (2015) 3 Improvement in documentation Wahlberg et al (2016) 3 Sought to prove association with patient experience compared with control but none seen Wahlberg et al (2017) 3 Sought to prove association with improved quality of care through quality indicators but none seen Eskeland et al (2017) 3 Improvement in referral quality Jiwa et al (2014) 3 Improvement in documentation of clinically relevant data. Referral times unchanged.…”
Section: Peer Feedbackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, as the cases were all standardised actor-patients, the GPs were not required to recruit patients and obtain informed consent, therefore data were obtained for all cases. Such advantages have facilitated research with similar challenging scenarios in the past 26. Three limitations also warrant mention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, although the 2 randomized trials included in the present review, both of which evaluated software-based interventions, improved the amount of information within a referral request, each failed to meet its goal of increasing consultation of guidelines 31 and improving specialist confidence in scheduling of appointments. 29 Thus, although the research team concluded that both succeeded in improving the primary outcome of this review (improving the content of referral requests), both studies concluded that their interventions were unsuccessful.…”
Section: Context Of Other Evidencementioning
confidence: 95%