Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process
Open accessAbstract
Objective To evaluate primary care and specialist physicians' satisfaction with interphysician communication and to identify the major problems in the current referral process.Design Surveys were mailed to providers to determine satisfaction with the referral process; then patient-specific surveys were e-mailed to this group to obtain real-time referral information.Setting Academic tertiary care medical center.Participants Attending-level primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists.Measurements and main results The response rate for mail surveys for PCPs was 57% and for specialists was 51%. In the mail survey, 63% of PCPs and 35% of specialists were dissatisfied with the current referral process. Respondents felt that major problems with the current referral system were lack of timeliness of information and inadequate referral letter content. Information considered important by recipient groups was often not included in letters that were sent. The response rate for the referral specific e-mail surveys was 56% for PCPs and 53% for specialists. In this e-mail survey, 68% of specialists reported that they received no information from the PCP prior to specific referral visits, and 38% of these said that this information would have been helpful. In addition, four weeks after specific referral visits, 25% of PCPs had still not received any information from specialists.Conclusions Substantial problems were present in the referral process. The major issues were physician dissatisfaction, lack of timeliness, and inadequate content of interphysician communication. Information obtained from the general survey and referral-specific survey was congruent. Efforts to improve the referral system could improve both physician satisfaction and quality of patient care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 another study, 25% of primary care physicians reported that they still had not received any information from specialists 4 weeks after referral visits.
“In another study, 68% of specialists reported not receiving any information from the primary care physician before the referral visit, and 25% of primary care physicians reported that they still had not received any information from specialists 4 weeks after referral visits.28”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [28]
Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps.
“Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps, and emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.21,25–32”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [28]
Emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.
“Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps, and emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.21,25–32”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [28]
In another study, 68% of specialists reported not receiving any information from the primary care physician before the referral visit.
“In another study, 68% of specialists reported not receiving any information from the primary care physician before the referral visit, and 25% of primary care physicians reported that they still had not received any information from specialists 4 weeks after referral visits.28”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 371
- Authors
- Gandhi, T. K., Sittig, D. F., Franklin, M., Sussman, A. J., Fairchild, D. G., & Bates, D. W.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bates, David W.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 626-631
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC1495590
- OpenAlex
- W2038146701
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 8.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- physician satisfaction, primary care physicians, specialist physicians, referral letters, quality of care
- MeSH terms
- Ambulatory Care, Boston, Communication, Data Collection, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Medicine, Primary Health Care, Quality of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, Specialization, Health Care Surveys
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