SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2018
Valued Components of a Consultant Letter from Referring Physicians' Perspective: a Systematic Literature Synthesis.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What do readers need? Qualitative requirements of medical discharge summaries from the recipients' perspective.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- How do geriatricians practise comprehensive geriatric assessment in the outpatient setting: an analysis of geriatricians' letters and a comparison to the Medicare benefits schedule requirement.Internal medicine journal · 2024Article
- eConsult Specialist Quality of Response (eSQUARE): A novel tool to measure specialist correspondence via electronic consultation.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective communication between the consultants and physicians form an integral foundation of effective and expert patient care. A broad review of the literature has not been undertaken to determine the components of a consultant's letter of most value to the referring physician. We aimed to identify the components of a consultant's letter preferred by referring physicians.
methodsWe searched Embase and MEDLINE (OVID) Medicine (EBM) Reviews and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for English articles with no restriction on initial date to January 6, 2017. Articles containing letters from specialists to referring physicians regarding outpatient assessments with either an observational or experimental design were included. Studies were excluded if they pertained to communications from referring physicians to consultant specialists, or pertained to allied health professionals, inpatient documents, or opinion articles. We enumerated the frequencies with which three common themes were addressed, and the positive or negative nature of the comments. The three themes were the structure of consultant letters, their contents, and whether referring physicians and consultants shared a common opinion about the items.
resultsEighteen articles were included in our synthesis. In 11 reports, 91% of respondents preferred structured formats. Other preferred structural features were problem lists and brevity (four reports each). The most preferred contents were oriented to insight: diagnosis, prognosis, and management plan (16/21 mentions in the top tertile). Data items such as history, physical examination, and medication lists were less important (1/23 mentions in the top tertile). Reports varied as to whether referring physicians and consultants shared common opinions about letter features.
conclusionsReferring physicians prefer brief, structured letters from consultants that feature diagnostic and prognostic opinions and management plans over unstructured letters that emphasize data elements such as detailed histories and medication lists. Whether these features improve outcomes is unknown.
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.