Dataset Information

Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) select few patients for specialist investigation. Having selected a patient, the GP writes a referral letter which serves primarily to convey concerns about the patient and offer background information. Referral letters to specialists sometimes provide an inadequate amount of information. The content of referral letters to colorectal surgeons can now be scored based on the views of GPs about the ideal content of referral letters. AIM: To determine if written feedback about the contents of GP referral letters mediated by local peers was acceptable to GPs and how this feedback influenced the content and variety of their referrals. DESIGN: A non-randomised control trial. SETTING: GPs in North Nottinghamshire. METHOD: In a controlled trial, 26 GPs were offered written feedback about the documented contents of their colorectal referral letters over 1 year. The feedback was designed and mediated by two nominated local GPs. The contents of referral letters were measured in the year before and 6 months after feedback. GPs were asked about the style of the feedback. The contents of referral letters and the proportion of patients with organic pathology were compared for the feedback GPs and other local GPs who could be identified as having used the same hospital for their referrals in the period before and after feedback. RESULTS: All GPs declared the method of feedback to be acceptable but raised concerns about their own performance, and some were upset by the experience. None withdrew from the project. There was a difference of 7.1 points (95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 12.2) in the content scores between the feedback group and the controls after adjusting for baseline differences between the groups. Of the GPs who referred to the same hospital before and after feedback, the feedback GPs referred more patients with organic pathology than other local colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: GPs welcome feedback about the details appearing on their referral letters, although peer comparisons may not always lead to changes in practice. However, in some cases feedback improves the content of GP referral letters and may also impact on the type of patients referred for investigation by specialists.

SUBMITTER: Jiwa M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1314806 | biostudies-other | 2004 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.

Jiwa Moyez M Walters Stephen S Mathers Nigel N

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 20040201 499

<h4>Background</h4>General practitioners (GPs) select few patients for specialist investigation. Having selected a patient, the GP writes a referral letter which serves primarily to convey concerns about the patient and offer background information. Referral letters to specialists sometimes provide an inadequate amount of information. The content of referral letters to colorectal surgeons can now be scored based on the views of GPs about the ideal content of referral letters.<h4>Aim</h4>To deter ...[more]

PMID: 14965392

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSurgical coaching is maturing as a tangible strategy for surgeons' continuing professional development. Resources to spread this innovation are not yet widely available.ObjectiveTo identify surgeon-derived implementation recommendations for surgical coaching programs from participants' exit interviews and ratings of their coaching interactions.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative analysis of the Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE) program, a quality improvement intervention, was conducted at 4 US academic medical centers. Participants included 46 practicing surgeons. The SCOPE program ran from December 7, 2018, to October 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020.InterventionsSurgeons were assigned as either a coach or a coachee, and each coach was paired with 1 coachee by a local champion who knew the surgeons professionally. Coaching pairs underwent training and were instructed to complete 3 coaching sessions-consisting of preoperative goal setting, intraoperative observation, and postoperative debriefing-focused on intraoperative performance.Main outcomes and measuresThemes from the participants' exit interviews covering 3 major domains: (1) describing the experience, (2) coach-coachee relationship, and (3) facilitators and barriers to implementing surgical coaching. Surgeons' responses were stratified by the net promoter score (NPS), a scale ranging from 0 to 10 points, indicating how likely they were to recommend their coaching session to others, with 9 to 10 indicating promoters; 7 to 8, passives; and 0 to 6, detractors.ResultsAmong the 46 participants (36 men [78.3%]), 23 were interviewed (50.0%); thematic saturation was reached with 5 coach-coachee pairs (10 interviews). Overall, coaches and coachees agreed on key implementation recommendations for surgical coaching, including how to optimize coach-coachee relationships and facilitate productive coaching sessions. The NPS categories were associated with how participants experienced their own coaching sessions. Specifically, participants who reported excellent first sessions, had a coaching partner in the same clinical specialty, and were transparent about each other's intentions in the program tended to be promoters. Participants who described suboptimal first sessions, less clinical overlap, and unclear goals with their partner were more likely detractors.Conclusions and relevanceThese exit interviews with practicing surgeons offer critical insights for addressing cultural barriers and practical challenges for successful implementation of peer coaching programs focused on surgical performance improvement. With empirical evidence on optimizing coach-coachee relationships and facilitating participants' experience, organizations can establish effective coaching programs that enable meaningful continuous professional development for surgeons and ultimately enhance patient care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In most Western countries, the referral letter forms the basis for establishing the priority of patients for specialised health care and for the coordination of care between the services. To be able to define the quality of referral letters, the potential impact of the quality on the organisation of care, and to improve the quality of the letters, we need a multidimensional definition of the ideal content. The study's aim was to explore what information is seen as most important and should be included in referral letters from primary care to specialised mental health care to facilitate prioritisation and planning of treatment and follow-up of the patients. METHODS:Based on purposive sampling, four mixed discussion groups, which included general practitioners, mental health nurses from primary health care, psychiatrists and psychologists from specialised mental health care, managers and patient representatives, were formed; they were asked to identify the information they considered important in a mental health referral letter. In line with the Delphi technique, the importance of the themes was later individually rated by the participants. The study was conducted within The Western Norway Regional Health Authority. RESULTS:The four groups identified 174 information themes. After excluding themes that were assessed as duplicates, replaceable or less important, 40 themes were suggested, organised in seven units. A set of check-off points of essential information is recommended as an introduction in the referral letter. CONCLUSION:Compared with general guidelines and guidelines for somatic care, the results of this study suggest that the referral letter to specialised mental health care should have a larger emphasis on the overall treatment plan, on the specific role of specialised health care in the continuum of care, and on patient involvement. Further research should evaluate the validity of these findings for other patient groups in need of integrated care and investigate how the quality of referral letters affects patient-related and organisational outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01374035.

Dataset Information

Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.

Publications

Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets