Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24982494›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014

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

Moyez Jiwa, Xingqiong Meng, Carolyn O'Shea, Parker Magin, Ann Dadich, Vinita Pillai

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Electronic checklists improve referral letters in gastroenterology: a randomized vignette survey.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Moyez JiwaDepartment of Medical Education.
Xingqiong MengSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Science.
Carolyn O'SheaCurtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Parker MaginDiscipline of General Practice, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Ann DadichSchool of Business, University of Western Sydney, Parramatta, NSW, Australia.
Vinita PillaiDepartment of Medical Education.
Curtin University · AUFaculty of Public Health · GBUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication is essential for triage, but intervention trials to improve it are scarce. Referral Writer (RW), a referral letter software program, enables documentation of clinical data and extracts relevant patient details from clinical software.

aimTo evaluate whether specialists are more confident about scheduling appointments when they receive more information in referral letters. DESIGN AND

settingSingle-blind, parallel-groups, controlled design with a 1:1 randomisation. Australian GPs watched video vignettes virtually.

methodGPs wrote referral letters after watching vignettes of patients with cancer symptoms. Letter content was scored against a benchmark. The proportions of referral letters triagable by a specialist with confidence, and in which the specialist was confident the patient had potentially life-limiting pathology were determined. Categorical outcomes were tested with χ(2) and continuous outcomes with t-tests. A random-effects logistic model assessed the influence of group randomisation (RW versus control), GP demographics, clinical specialty, and specialist referral assessor on specialist confidence in the information provided.

resultsThe intervention (RW) group referred more patients and scored significantly higher on information relayed (mean difference 21.6 [95% confidence intervals {CI} = 20.1 to 23.2]). There was no difference in the proportion of letters for which specialists were confident they had sufficient information for appointment scheduling (RW 77.7% versus control 80.6%, P = 0.16). In the logistic model, limited agreement among specialists contributed substantially to the observed differences in appointment scheduling (P = 35% [95% CI 16% to 59%]).

conclusionIn isolation, referral letter templates are unlikely to improve the scheduling of specialist appointments, even when more information is relayed.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesCorrespondence as TopicReferral and ConsultationAdultAustraliaFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansInterprofessional RelationsMaleMedical RecordsPatient Outcome AssessmentSingle-Blind MethodSpecializationdecision makinggeneral practiceinterdisciplinary correspondenceneoplasmsrandomised control trialreferral and consultation

Identifiers

PMID24982494
PMCPMC4073727
OpenAlexW2163566058

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.