Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31289080›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Evaluation of the referral management systems (RMS) used by GP practices in Northumberland: a qualitative study.

Rosie Dew, Scott Wilkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Rosie DewSchool of Medicine, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK.
Scott WilkesSchool of Medicine, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveExploring the views of stakeholders to the referral management systems (RMS) used by GP practices in Northumberland, UK to evaluate its perceived effectiveness.

designThis was an in-depth qualitative semi-structured interview study. PARTICIPANTS AND

setting32 participants (GPs, hospital consultants, referral support, hospital managers, Clinical Commissioning Group manager) in the North East of England, UK.

methodInterviews using a grounded theory approach and thematic analysis.

resultsThe main benefit of RMS mentioned by participants was that it allowed for unnecessary referrals to be vetted by consultants, and helps ensure patients are sent to the correct clinic. Generally, the consultants in our study felt that RMS did not significantly help them reject referrals. Some GPs experienced that RMS undermined GP autonomy and did not help when they had exhausted their abilities to manage a patient in primary care, and it was suggested that in some cases RMS may delay rather than prevent a referral. The main perceived disadvantage of RMS was the additional workload for GPs and consultants, and RMS was felt to be a barrier to commutation between GPs and consultants. Frustration with the system design and lack of knowledge of its cost-effectiveness were articulated.

conclusionAlthough RMS was reported to reduce some unnecessary referrals, the effect of referral delay and rejection is unknown. Although there were some positive attributes described, RMS was mostly received negatively by the stakeholders.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultColorectal SurgeryConsultantsEnglandFemaleGastroenterologistsGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersGrounded TheoryHospital AdministratorsHumansMaleMedical OveruseMiddle AgedOrthopedic Surgeonsprimary carequalitative researchreferral management systemRMSsecondary care

Identifiers

PMID31289080
PMCPMC6629383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.