ArticleLondon journal of primary care2018
The impact of delayed paper communication to primary care from secondary care and out of hours services.
Article in London journal of primary care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing clinical service design for multimorbidity management: A comprehensive approach to joined-up care for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Review
- London Journal of Primary Care - a PAUSE.London journal of primary care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The safe and effective treatment of patients accessing multiple NHS services relies upon efficient communication between primary care, secondary care, and out of hours providers. There is a theoretical risk to patient safety from delays in these processes, to which paper communications are particularly vulnerable. When letters are received they must be reviewed and prioritised in order of clinical importance, a process that requires both time and clinical resources. This is relevant to the challenge of resource allocation to maximise patient benefit. This retrospective study investigated the impact on patient safety of 249 clinical letters reporting routine clinical encounters in secondary care and out of hours services that were delayed by an average of 18-24 months to a suburban London general practice. No clinical harm could be attributed to the delay. This small study did not suggest delays in routine communications pose a significant risk to patient safety. Conversely, it questions the efficiency and benefit to patients of prioritising clinical time to reviewing routine letters. The adoption of fully integrated, shared electronic patient records with the function to highlight clinically urgent or important communications might ease clinician workload, to the ultimate benefit of patient care.
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.