Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20848235›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2011

Follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a multispecialty outpatient setting.

Hardeep Singh, Adol Esquivel, Dean F Sittig, Daniel Murphy, Himabindu Kadiyala, Rachel Schiesser, Donna Espadas, Laura A Petersen

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Does VA Health Care Still Measure Up?Journal of general internal medicine · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Exploring the sociotechnical intersection of patient safety and electronic health record implementation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014
    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

8 authors.

Hardeep SinghHouston VA HSR&D Center of Excellence and The Center of Inquiry to Improve Outpatient Safety Through Effective Electronic Communication, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. hardeeps@bcm.tmc.edu
Adol Esquivel
Dean F Sittig
Daniel Murphy
Himabindu Kadiyala
Rachel Schiesser
Donna Espadas
Laura A Petersen

Funding

Reducing Missed And Delayed Diagnoses In Cancer: Lessons From AviationK23CA125585 · NCI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI SINGH, HARDEEP · 2007 to 2011
$709k
NCI NIH HHS K23 CA125585NCI NIH HHS K23CA125585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesElectronic health records (EHR) enable transmission and tracking of referrals between primary-care practitioners (PCPs) and subspecialists. We used an EHR to examine follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a large multispecialty VA facility.

methodsWe retrieved outpatient referrals to five subspecialties between October 2006 and December 2007, and queried the EHR to determine their status: completed, discontinued (returned to PCP), or unresolved (no action taken by subspecialist). All unresolved referrals, and random samples of discontinued and completed referrals were reviewed to determine whether subspecialists took follow-up actions (i.e., schedule appointments anytime in the future) within 30 days of referral-receipt. For referrals without timely follow-up, we determined whether inaction was supported by any predetermined justifiable reasons or associated with certain referral characteristics. We also reviewed if PCPs took the required action on returned information.

resultsOf 61,931 referrals, 22,535 were discontinued (36.4%), and 474 were unresolved (0.8%). We selected 412 discontinued referrals randomly for review. Of these, 52% lacked follow-up actions within 30 days. Appropriate justifications for inaction were documented in 69.8% (150/215) of those without action and included lack of prerequisite testing by the PCP and subspecialist opinion that no intervention was required despite referral. We estimated that at 30 days, 6.3% of all referrals were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up actions by subspecialists. Conversely, 7.4% of discontinued referrals returned to PCPs were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up.

conclusionsAlthough the EHR facilitates transmission of valuable information at the PCP-subspecialist interface, unexplained communication breakdowns in the referral process persist in a subset of cases.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationAmbulatory CareContinuity of Patient CareElectronic Health RecordsHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMedicinePhysicians, Primary CareReferral and ConsultationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID20848235
PMCPMC3024094

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.