Trial reportBMJ open2016
Impact of referral templates on patient experience of the referral and care process: a cluster randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01470963 (Practical Health Co-operation - a Randomised Controlled Intervention Study. The Impact of a Referral Template on Quality of Care and Health Care Co-operation Between Primary and Secondary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Practical Health Co-operation - a Randomised Controlled Intervention Study. The Impact of a Referral Template on Quality of Care and Health Care Co-operation Between Primary and Secondary Care
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Exploring plastic and reconstructive surgery referral pathways: Insights from primary care physicians in Bahrain.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Improving quality of referral letters from primary to secondary care: a literature review and discussion paper.Primary health care research & development · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate if a referral intervention improves the patient experience of the referral and treatment process.
settingInterface between 14 primary care surgeries and a district general hospital.
participantsThe 14 general practitioner (GP) surgeries (7 intervention, 7 control) in the area around the University Hospital of North Norway Harstad were randomised and all completed the study. Consecutive individual patients were recruited at their hospital appointment. A total of 500 patients were recruited with 281 in the intervention and 219 in the control arm.
interventionsDissemination of referral templates for 4 diagnostic groups (dyspepsia, suspected colorectal cancer, chest pain and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) coupled with intermittent surgery visits by study personnel. The control arm continued standard referral practice. The intervention was in use for 2.5 years. OUTCOME: The main outcome was a quality indicator score. This paper reports a secondary outcome, the patient experience, as measured by self-report questionnaires. GPs in the intervention group could not be blinded. Patients were blinded to intervention status. Analysis was based on single-question comparison with a questionnaire subscore used to assess the effect of clustering.
resultsOn the individual questions, overall satisfaction was very high with minor differences between the intervention and control group. Interestingly, the most negative responses, in both groups concerned questions relating to patient interaction and information. Very little evidence of clustering was found with an estimated intracluster correlations coefficient at 1.21e
conclusionsIn total, this indicates no clear effect of the implementation of referral templates on the patient experience, in a setting of generally high patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01470963; Results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.