Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27797992›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Impact of referral templates on patient experience of the referral and care process: a cluster randomised trial.

Henrik Wåhlberg, Tonje Braaten, Ann Ragnhild Broderstad

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT01470963 nacompletednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital of North NorwayRan2011 to 2014Enrolled500ConditionsReferral, Quality of Health CareArmsImplementation of referral template
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Henrik WåhlbergDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Tonje BraatenDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Ann Ragnhild BroderstadUniversity Hospital of North Norway, Harstad, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

General PractitionersPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedChest PainColorectal NeoplasmsDyspepsiaFemaleHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayGeneral practitionerPatient experienceReferral

Identifiers

PMID27797992
PMCPMC5093387

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.