Trial reportAtencion primaria2019
[Effectiveness of a new model of telephone derivation shared between primary care and hospital care].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Barriers and Benefits of the Scheduled Telephone Referral Model (DETELPROG): A Qualitative Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- DETELPROG Study. Effectiveness of a New Model of Scheduled Telephone Referral from Primary Care to Internal Medicine. A Randomised Controlled Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
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
aimThe purpose of this study is to find out whether telephone referral from Primary Health Care to Internal Medicine Consult manages to reduce waiting days as compared to traditional referral. This study also aims to know how acceptable is the telephone referral to general practitioners and their patients.
designNo blind randomized controlled clinical trial.
settingNorthern Huelva Health District.
participants154 patients.
interventionsPatients referrals from intervention clinicians were sent via telephone consultation, whereas patients referrals from control clinicians were sent by traditional via. MEASUREMENTS: Number of days from referral request to Internal Medicine Consult. Number of telephone and traditional referrals. Number of doctors and patients denied. Denial reasons.
resultsA statistically significant difference was found between groups, with an average of 27 (21-34) days. Among General Practitioners, 8 of the first 58 total doctors after randomization and, subsequently, 6 of the 20 doctors of the test group refused to engage in the trial because they considered "excessive time and effort consuming". 50% of patients referred by the 14 General Practitioners finally randomized to the intervention group were denied referral by telephone due to patient's complexity.
conclusionsTelephone referral significantly reduces waiting days for Internal Medicine consult. This type of referral did not mean an "excessive time and effort consuming" to General Practitioners and was not all that beneficial to complex patients.
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.