Determinants and Impact of Generalist–Specialist Communication About Pediatric Outpatient Referrals
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. Effective communication between primary care and specialty physicians is essential for comanagement when children are referred to specialty care. We sought to determine rates of physician-reported communication between primary care physicians and specialists, the clinical impact of communication or its absence, and patient- and practice system–level determinants of communication for a cohort of children referred to specialty care. METHODS. We enrolled 179 patients newly referred from general pediatricians in 30 community practices to 15 pediatric medical specialists in 5 specialties. Primary care physicians and specialists completed questionnaires at the first specialty visit and 6 months later. Questions covered communication received by primary care physicians and specialists, its impact on care provision, system characteristics of practices, and roles of physicians in treatment. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine associations between practice system and patient characteristics and the dependent variable of reported primary care physician–specialist communication. RESULTS. Specialists reported communication from referring primary care physicians for only 50% of initial referrals, whereas primary care physicians reported communication from specialists after 84% of initial consultations. Communication was strongly associated with physicians' reported ability to provide optimal care. System characteristics associated with reported primary care physician–specialist communication were computer access to chart notes and lack of delays in receipt of information. Associated patient characteristics included non-Medicaid insurance, no additional specialists seen, and specialty to which referred. Physicians favored comanagement of referred patients in more than two thirds of the cases. CONCLUSIONS. Although a prerequisite for optimal care, communication from primary care physicians to specialists is frequently absent. Interventions should promote widely accessible clinical information systems and target children with complex needs and public insurance.
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?
Additional variables beyond reimbursement affect physicians' decisions about whether to accept public insurance, such as delays in payment and hassles of payment procedures, personal characteristics of providers, and structural features of the system in which they provide care.
“the literature indicates that additional variables affect physicians' decisions about whether to accept public insurance, such as delays in payment and hassles of payment procedures, 35,36 personal characteristics of providers (e.g., credentials or experience, 34,38,39 race or ethnic group, 34,[38][39][40][41] and underlying attitudes or prejudices 39,42 ), and structural features of the system in”
From Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance (2011) · cites this paper as [34]
Reimbursement levels influence providers' decisions about whether to accept public insurance.
“reimbursement levels influence providers' decisions about whether to accept public insurance.8,[34][35][36]”
From Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance (2011) · cites this paper as [34]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance
Bisgaier, J., & Rhodes, K. V. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1013285 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Follow-up Actions on Electronic Referral Communication in a Multispecialty Outpatient Setting
Singh, H., Esquivel, A., Sittig, D. F., Murphy, D., Kadiyala, H., Schiesser, R., Espadas, D., & Petersen, L. A. (2011) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1501-z · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stille, C. J., McLaughlin, T. J., Primack, W. A., Mazor, K. M., & Wasserman, R. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
- Departments of Pediatrics
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Vermont (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2006-10-01
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1341-1349
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2146851588
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- 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
- co-management, electronic health records, insurance status, Medicaid
- MeSH terms
- Ambulatory Care, Child, Communication, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Medicine, Outpatients, Pediatrics, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Prospective Studies, Referral and Consultation, Regression Analysis, 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