Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variation in GP referral rates: what can we learn from the literature?

O'Donnell, C. A·2000·Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Variations in referral rates exist, at GP and practice level. Although the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to produce referral guidelines, it is unclear if this variation requires regulation. A critical review of the literature on variation in referral rates was undertaken to see if existing evidence could inform the debate. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the variation in referral rates; to identify likely explanatory variables; and to describe the effect of GPs' decision making on the referral process. METHODS: Six bibliographic databases, the Cochrane Library, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the National Research Register were searched. RESULTS: Patient characteristics explain <40% of the observed variation; practice and GP characteristics <10%. The availability of specialist care does affect referral rates, but its influence on the observed variation of referral rates is not known. Intrinsic psychological variables are important. GPs who are less tolerant of uncertainty or who perceive serious disease to be a more frequent event may refer more patients. There is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an appropriate referral, and the use of guidelines has had only limited success in altering referral behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in referral rates remains largely unexplained. Targeting high or low referrers through clinical guidelines may not be the issue. Rather, activity should concentrate on increasing the number of appropriate referrals, regardless of the referral rate. Pressure on GPs to review their referral behaviour through the use of guidelines may reduce their willingness to tolerate uncertainty and manage problems in primary care, resulting in an increase in referrals to secondary care. The use of referral rates to stimulate dialogue and joint working between primary and secondary care may be more appropriate.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/17.6.462

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 291

Metadata

Authors
O'Donnell, C. A.
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2000-12-01
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
462-471
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W1986336970
Cited by
291
References
42
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in GP referral rates: what can we learn from the literature? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/fampra/17.6.462
The paper
O'Donnell, C. A. (2000). Variation in GP referral rates: what can we learn from the literature? Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/17.6.462

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.