ArticleCanadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur2024
Assessing Quality of Referrals to a Community-Based Chronic Pain Clinic.
Article in Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hospital triage of general practice referrals: exploring the role of triage in rejected referrals.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Because patients with chronic pain are complex, with significant medical and psychiatric comorbidities, referrals to specialty pain clinics are often necessary. The present study explores the quality of information submitted and the profile of referring physicians associated with rejected patient referrals by a community pain clinic. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on a series of consecutive new patient referrals rejected by a noninterventional community pain clinic (November 2021-June 2022). Data were collected on the reasons for rejected referrals and physicians responsible for these referrals using the public database of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Results: During the study period, 120 new referrals made by 99 physicians (88% primary care providers, or PCPs; male : female ratio 1:1.2; 53% Canadian university graduates) were rejected because of inadequate information (62%) or because they were inappropriate (38%). Only 46% of the rejected referrals were resubmitted within a median of 7 days (range 0-96 days) and accepted. Half of the non-resubmitted referrals could have been accepted if the referring provider had sent in the missing information. Conclusion: A significant number of referrals to our pain clinic (primarily from PCPs) are rejected for mainly avoidable reasons. The process of rejected referrals and resubmissions requires 92 to 126 h of additional staff time/year. Without additional health care resources, our study highlights simple but effective improvements in the referral process that could facilitate patient care, avoid unnecessary delays, and decrease possible sources of patient complaints.
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.