首页> 外文期刊>The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners >Referral letters to colorectal surgeons: the impact of peer-mediated feedback.
【24h】

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

机译:给大肠外科医生的推荐信:同伴介导的反馈的影响。

获取原文
           

摘要

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.
机译:背景:全科医生(GPs)选择少数患者进行专科检查。选择了患者后,GP会写一封推荐信,主要用于传达对患者的关注并提供背景信息。给专家的推荐信有时提供的信息不足。现在,可以根据全科医生对推荐信的理想内容的看法对结直肠外科医生的推荐信进行评分。目的:确定由当地同伴介导的有关GP推荐信内容的书面反馈是否为GP所接受,以及这种反馈如何影响其推荐的内容和种类。设计:一项非随机对照试验。地点:北诺丁汉郡的全科医生。方法:在一项对照试验中,向26位全科医生提供了有关其结直肠推荐信在1年内的书面内容的书面反馈。反馈是由两个提名的本地GP设计和调解的。推荐信的内容在反馈前一年和反馈后六个月进行测量。向全科医生询问了反馈的方式。比较了反馈GP和其他本地GP的推荐信内容和器质性病变患者的比例,这些GP和其他本地GP在反馈之前和之后均被转诊为同一家医院。结果:所有GP都认为反馈方法是可以接受的,但对他们自己的表现提出了担忧,有些人对此经验感到沮丧。没有人退出该项目。调整两组之间的基线差异后,反馈组与对照组之间的内容得分相差7.1分(95%置信区间= 1.9至12.2)。在反馈之前和之后转诊至同一医院的全科医生中,反馈的全科医生转诊的器官病理学患者多于其他本地同事。结论:尽管同行比较未必总是会导致实践上的改变,但是全科医生也欢迎有关推荐信中出现的详细信息的反馈。但是,在某些情况下,反馈会改善GP转诊信的内容,并可能还会影响转诊专科进行调查的患者类型。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号