Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14702909›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003

A systematic review of the effect of primary care-based service innovations on quality and patterns of referral to specialist secondary care.

Alex Faulkner, Nicola Mills, David Bainton, Kate Baxter, Paul Kinnersley, Tim J Peters, Deborah Sharp

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Telephone consultations in urology: Who, when, where, and why?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alex FaulknerCardiff University School of Social Sciences, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT. faulknerac@cf.ac.uk
Nicola Mills
David Bainton
Kate Baxter
Paul Kinnersley
Tim J Peters
Deborah Sharp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovations are proliferating at the primary-secondary care interface, affecting referral to secondary care and resource use. Evidence about the range of effects and implications for the healthcare system of different types of innovation have not previously been summarised.

aimTo review the available evidence on initiatives affecting primary care referral to specialist secondary care.

settingStudies of primary-secondary care interface.

methodSystematic review of trials, using adapted Cochrane Collaboration (effective practice and organisation of care) criteria. Studies from 1980 to 2001 were identified from a wide range of sources. Strict inclusion criteria were applied, and relevant clinical, service and cost data extracted using an agreed protocol. The main outcome measures were referral rates to specialist secondary care.

resultsOf the 139 studies initially identified. 34 met the review criteria. An updated search added a further 10 studies. Two studies provided economic analysis only. Referral was not the primary outcome of interest in the majority of included studies. Professional interventions generally had an impact on referral rates consistent with the intended change in clinician behaviour. Similarly, specialist 'outreach' or other primary care-based specialist provider schemes had at least a small effect upon referral rates to secondary care with the direction of effect being that intended or rational from a clinical and sociological perspective. Of the financial interventions, one was aimed primarily at changing the numbers or proportion of referrals from primary to specialist secondary care, and the direction of change was as expected in all cases. The quality of the reporting of the economic components of the 14 studies giving economic data was poor in many cases. When grouped by intervention type, no overall pattern of change in referral costs or total costs emerged.

conclusionThe studies identified were extremely diverse in methodology, clinical subject, organisational form, and quality of evidence. The number of good quality evaluations of innovative schemes to enhance the existing capacity of primary care was small, but increasing. Well-evaluated service initiatives in this area should be supported. Organisational innovations in the structure of service provision need not increase total costs to the National Health Service (NHS), even though costs associated with referral may increase. This review provides limited, partial, and conditional support for current primary care-oriented NHS policy developments in the United Kingdom.

Indexed as

Organizational InnovationFamily PracticeHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMedicinePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareReferral and ConsultationSpecialization

Identifiers

PMID14702909
PMCPMC1314732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.