Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20512531›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2010

Evaluating electronic referrals for specialty care at a public hospital.

Judy E Kim-Hwang, Alice Hm Chen, Douglas S Bell, David Guzman, Hal F Yee, Margot B Kushel

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02376855 (A Study of the Implementation of an Electronic Consultation), which is not on this map. Cited by 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT02376855 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

A Study of the Implementation of an Electronic Consultation ("eConsult") Platform to Increase Specialist Access for Patients in Underserved Populations: Impact on Provider Experience, Wait Times and Cost

TypeinterventionalSponsorCommunity Health Center, Inc.Ran2011 to 2013Enrolled36ConditionsCardiovascular DiseasesArmseConsult
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Electronic consultations and clinician burnout: An antidote to our emotional pandemic?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Judy E Kim-HwangInternal Medicine Residency Program, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alice Hm Chen
Douglas S Bell
David Guzman
Hal F Yee
Margot B Kushel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor communication between referring clinicians and specialists may lead to inefficient use of specialist services. San Francisco General Hospital implemented an electronic referral system (eReferral) that facilitates iterative pre-visit communication between referring and specialty clinicians to improve the referral process.

objectiveThe purpose of the study was to determine the impact of eReferral (compared with paper-based referrals) on specialty referrals.

designThe study was based on a visit-based questionnaire appended to new patient charts at randomly selected specialist clinic sessions before and after the implementation of eReferral.

participantsSpecialty clinicians. MAIN MEASURES: The questionnaire focused on the self-reported difficulty in identifying referral question, referral appropriateness, need for and avoidability of follow-up visits. KEY

resultsWe collected 505 questionnaires from speciality clinicians. It was difficult to identify the reason for referral in 19.8% of medical and 38.0% of surgical visits using paper-based methods vs. 11.0% and 9.5% of those using eReferral (p-value 0.03 and <0.001). Of those using eReferral, 6.4% and 9.8% of medical and surgical referrals using paper methods vs. 2.6% and 2.1% were deemed not completely appropriate (p-value 0.21 and 0.03). Follow-up was requested for 82.4% and 76.2% of medical and surgical patients with paper-based referrals vs. 90.1% and 58.1% of eReferrals (p-value 0.06 and 0.01). Follow-up was considered avoidable for 32.4% and 44.7% of medical and surgical follow-ups with paper-based methods vs. 27.5% and 13.5% with eReferral (0.41 and <0.001).

conclusionUse of technology to promote standardized referral processes and iterative communication between referring clinicians and specialists has the potential to improve communication between primary care providers and specialists and to increase the effectiveness of specialty referrals.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, PublicHumansMedicineReferral and ConsultationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID20512531
PMCPMC2955477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.