Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41723401›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

Hospital triage of general practice referrals: exploring the role of triage in rejected referrals.

Mette Elkjaer, Niels Kristian Kjaer, Helle Ibsen, Christian Backer Mogensen, Jens Søndergaard, Jesper Lykkegaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Mette ElkjaerResearch Center for Integrated Healthcare, Region of Southern Denmark, Aabenraa, Denmark. mette.elkjaer@rsyd.dk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8774-105X
Niels Kristian KjaerDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Helle IbsenDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Christian Backer MogensenDepartment for Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Jens SøndergaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Jesper LykkegaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollaboration between General Practitioners (GPs) and specialised hospital services is essential for efficient, patient-centred care. In Denmark, GPs manage patients’ conditions and coordinate referrals to specialised services. Hospital referral triage consultants act as second-line gatekeepers, assessing the appropriate allocation of the patient or returning the referral to the GP when criteria are not met. The proportion of referrals rejected has increased, and inadequate communication between GPs and hospitals may contribute to these rejections. Understanding how triage consultants make decisions and coordinate care is critical for optimising referral pathways. This study aimed to explore the decision-making and coordination processes involved in rejected referrals from the perspective of hospital triage consultants.

methodsA qualitative design was employed using individual telephone interviews. Data were analysed following Braun and Clarke’s reflective thematic analysis.

resultsTen hospital triage consultants participated, with 1 to 18 years of clinical experience, representing, orthopaedic surgery, urology, endocrinology, radiology, psychiatry, neurology, general medicine and haematology; four were female. Interviews lasted 21–37 min. Four themes emerged: (1) The referral process is influenced by specialisation and regulatory mandates, (2) Communication within the referral process – a remnant of the past, (3) The referral as a requested clinical task – Defining Scope and Responsibility, and (4) Selection of “the right patients” for specialised treatment. Findings indicate that triage consultants act as gatekeepers between GPs and specialist departments, balancing clinical information with departmental capacity. Structural and procedural constraints limit system flexibility. The consultants had several suggestions to improve the referral process quality and efficiency.

conclusionsEfficiency could be enhanced by revising legal and administrative constraints and optimising consultants’ workloads. Pathways work well for clearly defined cases, e.g., cancer-suspect cases, but poorly for patients with complex conditions requiring tailored approaches. Establishing accessible and flexible referral criteria can improve triage and the identification and prioritisation of patients with the greatest clinical needs. Improved collaboration between triage consultants, GPs, and patients, e.g., through direct contact or further correspondence, may enhance referral quality and overall patient care. These findings have identified practical strategies to strengthen hospital–primary care coordination and support resource-efficient, patient-centred pathways.

Indexed as

General PracticeReferral and ConsultationTriageDecision MakingDenmarkFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchDecision-making dynamicsHealthcare communicationHealthcare systemsHospital gatekeepingPatient pathwaysReturned referrals

Identifiers

PMID41723401
PMCPMC13032541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.