The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Follow-up Actions on Electronic Referral Communication in a Multispecialty Outpatient Setting
Open accessAbstract
Objectives Electronic health records (EHR) enable transmission and tracking of referrals between primary-care practitioners (PCPs) and subspecialists. We used an EHR to examine follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a large multispecialty VA facility.Methods We retrieved outpatient referrals to five subspecialties between October 2006 and December 2007, and queried the EHR to determine their status: completed, discontinued (returned to PCP), or unresolved (no action taken by subspecialist). All unresolved referrals, and random samples of discontinued and completed referrals were reviewed to determine whether subspecialists took follow-up actions (i.e., schedule appointments anytime in the future) within 30 days of referral-receipt. For referrals without timely follow-up, we determined whether inaction was supported by any predetermined justifiable reasons or associated with certain referral characteristics. We also reviewed if PCPs took the required action on returned information.Results Of 61,931 referrals, 22,535 were discontinued (36.4%), and 474 were unresolved (0.8%). We selected 412 discontinued referrals randomly for review. Of these, 52% lacked follow-up actions within 30 days. Appropriate justifications for inaction were documented in 69.8% (150/215) of those without action and included lack of prerequisite testing by the PCP and subspecialist opinion that no intervention was required despite referral. We estimated that at 30 days, 6.3% of all referrals were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up actions by subspecialists. Conversely, 7.4% of discontinued referrals returned to PCPs were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up.Conclusions Although the EHR facilitates transmission of valuable information at the PCP-subspecialist interface, unexplained communication breakdowns in the referral process persist in a subset of cases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In previous work, the sociotechnical model was applicable in specific clinical contexts such as test results and referral communication.
“For instance, in our previous work, we found this sociotechnical model applicable in specific clinical contexts (eg, test results and referral communication), 43 -48”
From Exploring the sociotechnical intersection of patient safety and electronic health record implementation (2014) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, H., Esquivel, A., Sittig, D. F., Murphy, D., Kadiyala, H., Schiesser, R., Espadas, D., & Petersen, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- Memorial Hermann (US)
- Baylor College of Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Hardeep
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2010-09-17
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-69
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC3024094
- OpenAlex
- W2071084285
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (HFP90-020)
- National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Keywords
- electronic health records, referral and follow-up, communication breakdown, veterans' health care, appointment scheduling
- MeSH terms
- Ambulatory Care, Continuity of Patient Care, Humans, Medicine, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Interdisciplinary Communication, Electronic Health Records, Physicians, Primary Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review