The impact of referral letter quality on timely access to specialised mental health care: a quantitative study of the reliability of patient triage.

BACKGROUND: Patients referred to specialised mental health care are usually triaged based on referral information provided by general practitioners. However, knowledge about this system's ability to ensure timely access to and equity in specialised mental health care is limited. We aimed to investigate to the degree to which patient triage, based on referral letter information, corresponds to triage based on a hospital specialist's consultation with the patient, and whether the degree of correspondence is affected by the quality of the referral letter. METHODS: We gathered information from three specialised mental health centres in Norway regarding patients that were referred and offered health care (N = 264). Data consisted of triage decisions for each patient (i.e., the hospital specialist's assessment of maximum acceptable waiting time), which were determined on the basis of a) referral information and b) meeting the patient. Referral letter quality was evaluated using the Quality of Referral information-Mental Health checklist. The reliability of priority setting and the impact of referral letter quality on this measure were investigated using descriptive analyses, binary logistic regression and Nadaraya-Watson kernel regression. RESULTS: In 143 (54%) cases, the triage decision based on referral information corresponded with the decision based on patient consultation. In 70 (27%) cases, the urgency of need for treatment was underestimated when based on referral information compared with that based on information from patient consultation. Referral letter quality could not explain the differences between the two triage decisions. However, when a cut-off value of 7 on the Quality of Referral information-Mental Health scale was used, low-quality letters were found more frequently among patients whose urgency of need was underestimated, compared with those whose need was overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: Deciding the urgency of patient need for specialised mental health care based on referral information is a reliable system in many situations. However, the possibility of under- and overestimation is present, implying risks to patient safety and inappropriate use of resources. Improving the content of referral letters does not appear to reduce this risk when the letters are of acceptable quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01374035 .

General practitioners' reflections on using PSA for diagnosis of prostate cancer. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how GPs use the PSA test as a diagnostic tool in daily practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus group interviews, the transcripts being analyzed by systemic text condensation. SUBJECTS: A total of 17 Norwegian GPs in three CME groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploring GPs' attitudes to national guidelines and the practical use of the PSA test. RESULTS: Detecting prostate cancer in general practice is a common and important, but difficult diagnostic issue. Our participants experienced uncertainty regarding the test when to use it, how to interpret the results and when to refer to specialist health services. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a general ambivalence to the use of PSA. Many patients present urological problems, and many are afraid of having cancer. PSA is commonly used, but sometimes generates problems rather than solving them. IMPLICATIONS: The use of the PSA test should be based on a thorough clinical assessment and in close collaboration with the patient.Key pointsMany patients in general practice present urological problems, and many are afraid of having cancer.GPs have a general ambivalence to the use of PSA when to use it, how to interpret the results and when to refer to specialist health services.The use of PSA sometimes generates problems rather than solving them.

Effects of replacing PSA with Stockholm3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in a healthcare system - the Stavanger experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe early experience of replacing PSA with Stockholm3 for detection of prostate cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND METHODS: Longitudinal observations, comparing outcome measures before and after the implementation of Stockholm3. SETTING: Stavanger region in Norway with about 370,000 inhabitants, 304 general practitioners (GPs) in 97 primary care clinics, and one hospital. INTERVENTION: GPs were instructed to use Stockholm3 instead of PSA as standard procedure for diagnosis of prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of GP clinics that had ordered a Stockholm3 test. Number of men referred to needle biopsy. Distribution of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) (Gleason Score ≥7) and clinically non-significant prostate cancer (cnsPC) (Gleason Score 6), in needle biopsies. Estimation of direct healthcare costs. RESULTS: Stockholm3 was rapidly implemented as 91% (88/97) of the clinics started to use the test within 14 weeks. After including 4784 tested men, the percentage who would have been referred for prostate needle biopsy was 29.0% (1387/4784) if based on PSA level ≥3ng/ml, and 20.8% (995/4784) if based on Stockholm3 Risk Score (p < 0.000001). The proportion of positive biopsies with csPC increased from 42% (98/233) before to 65% (185/285) after the implementation. Correspondingly, the proportion of cnsPC decreased from 58% (135/233) before to 35% (100/285) after the implementation (p < 0.0017). Direct healthcare costs were estimated to be reduced by 23-28% per tested man. CONCLUSION: Replacing PSA with Stockholm3 for early detection of prostate cancer in primary care is feasible. Implementation of Stockholm3 resulted in reduced number of referrals for needle-biopsy and a higher proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer findings in performed biopsies. Direct healthcare costs decreased. KEY POINTS A change from PSA to Stockholm3 for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in primary care in the Stavanger region in Norway is described and assessed. •Implementation of a new blood-based test for prostate cancer detection in primary care was feasible. A majority of GP clinics started to use the test within three months. •Implementation of the Stockholm3 test was followed by: -a 28% reduction in number of men referred for urological prostate cancer work-up -an increase in the proportion of clinically significant cancer in performed prostate biopsies from 42 to 65% -an estimated reduction in direct health care costs between 23 and 28%.

Quality indicators for the referral process from primary to specialised mental health care: an explorative study in accordance with the RAND appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Communication between involved parties is essential to ensure coordinated and safe health care delivery. However, existing literature reveals that the information relayed in the referral process is seen as insufficient by the receivers. It is unknown how this insufficiency affects the quality of care, and valid performance measures to explore it are lacking. The aim of the present study was to develop quality indicators to detect the impact that the quality of referral letters from primary care to specialised mental health care has on the quality of mental health services. METHODS: Using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, a systematic literature review and focus group interviews were conducted to define quality indicators for mental health care expected to be affected by the quality of referral information. Focus group participants included psychiatrists, psychologists, general practitioners, patient representatives and managers. The existing evidence and suggested indicators were presented to expert panels, who assessed the indicators by their validity, reliability, sensitivity and feasibility. RESULTS: Sixteen preliminary indicators emerged during the focus group interviews and literature review. The expert panels recommended four of the 16 indicators. The recommended indicators measure a) timely access, b) delay in the process of assessing the referral, c) delay in the onset of care and d) the appropriateness of the referral. Adjustment was necessary for five other indicators, and seven indicators were rejected because of expected confounding factors reducing their validity and sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of information relayed in the referral process from primary care to specialised mental health care is expected to affect a wide range of dimensions defining high quality care. The expected importance of the referral process for ensuring 'timely access'-one of the six aims of high-quality health care defined by the Institute of Medicine-is highlighted. Exploring the underlying mechanisms for the potential impact of referral information on patient outcomes is recommended to enhance quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01374035 (28 April 2011).

Typologies in GPs' referral practice.

BACKGROUND: GPs' individual decisions to refer and the various ways of working when they refer are important determinants of secondary care use. The objective of this study was to explore and describe potential characteristics of GPs' referral practice by investigating their opinions about referring and their self-reported experiences of what they do when they refer. METHODS: Observational cross-sectional study using data from 128 Norwegian GPs who filled in a questionnaire with statements on how they regarded the referral process, and who were invited to collect data when they actually referred to hospital during one month. Only elective referrals were recorded. The 57 participants (44,5 %) recorded data from 691 referrals. The variables were included in a principal component analysis. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify typologies with GP's age, gender, specialty in family medicine and location as independent variables. RESULTS: Eight principal components describe the different ways GPs think and work when they refer. Two typologies summarize these components: confidence characterizing specialists in family medicine, mainly female, who reported a more patient-centred practice making priority decisions when they refer, who confer easily with hospital consultants and who complete the referrals during the consultation; uncertainty characterizing young, mainly male non-specialists in family medicine, experiencing patients' pressure to be referred, heavy workload, having reluctance to cooperate with the patient and reporting sparse contact with hospital colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Training specialists in family medicine in patient-centred method, easy conference with hospital consultant and cooperation with patients while making the referral may foster both self-reflections on own competences and increased levels of confidence.

The consultants' role in the referring process with general practitioners: partners or adjudicators? a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Within the health system, communication between the different levels of care is essential for the patients' clinical pathways and medical treatment. This includes the referral process: how and why patients are sent from the primary care level to specialist health services. We wanted to identify and describe hospital consultants' reflections on and attitudes to the referral process and cooperation with general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with 13 hospital consultants representing eight different specialties, analyzed using systematic text condensation. Interviews conducted from February 2011 to October 2012. RESULTS: The consultants reported a considerable workload assessing referrals from GPs and prioritizing patients for specialist services. National guidelines were used as well as individual standards and guidelines. Good referrals could make the prioritization process easier. The specialists expressed a deep concern about securing a fair priority of patients and a willingness to give reasonable advice back to the referring GP when rejecting a referral. Better communication, such as a telephone call to confer with a hospital specialist before referral, was wanted. CONCLUSIONS: Better communication and cooperation between hospital consultants and GPs could make the referral process more balanced, and the participants more like partners.

Recommended content of referral letters from general practitioners to specialised mental health care: a qualitative multi-perspective study.

BACKGROUND: In most Western countries, the referral letter forms the basis for establishing the priority of patients for specialised health care and for the coordination of care between the services. To be able to define the quality of referral letters, the potential impact of the quality on the organisation of care, and to improve the quality of the letters, we need a multidimensional definition of the ideal content. The study's aim was to explore what information is seen as most important and should be included in referral letters from primary care to specialised mental health care to facilitate prioritisation and planning of treatment and follow-up of the patients. METHODS: Based on purposive sampling, four mixed discussion groups, which included general practitioners, mental health nurses from primary health care, psychiatrists and psychologists from specialised mental health care, managers and patient representatives, were formed; they were asked to identify the information they considered important in a mental health referral letter. In line with the Delphi technique, the importance of the themes was later individually rated by the participants. The study was conducted within The Western Norway Regional Health Authority. RESULTS: The four groups identified 174 information themes. After excluding themes that were assessed as duplicates, replaceable or less important, 40 themes were suggested, organised in seven units. A set of check-off points of essential information is recommended as an introduction in the referral letter. CONCLUSION: Compared with general guidelines and guidelines for somatic care, the results of this study suggest that the referral letter to specialised mental health care should have a larger emphasis on the overall treatment plan, on the specific role of specialised health care in the continuum of care, and on patient involvement. Further research should evaluate the validity of these findings for other patient groups in need of integrated care and investigate how the quality of referral letters affects patient-related and organisational outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01374035.

General practitioners' reflections on referring: an asymmetric or non-dialogical process?

OBJECTIVE: Identify and describe general practitioners' (GPs') reflections on and attitudes to the referral process and cooperation with hospital specialists. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured focus-group interviews with GPs analysed using Giorgi's method as modified by Malterud. SETTING: Interviews conducted over four months from November 2010 to February 2011. SUBJECTS: 17 female and 14 male GPs aged 29 to 61 years from 21 different practices, who had practised for 3-35 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Description of GPs' views on the referral process. RESULTS: GPs wished for improved dialogue with the hospital specialists. The referral process was often considered as asymmetric and sometimes humiliating. GPs saw the benefit of using templates in the referral process, but were sceptical concerning the use of mandatory fixed formats. CONCLUSIONS: The referral process is essential for good patient care between general practice and specialist services. GPs consider referring as asymmetric and sometimes humiliating. The dichotomy between the wish for mutual dialogue and the convenience of using templates should be kept in mind when assuring quality of the referral process.

[Should patients in general practice be offered a copy of their medical record?]. / Bør pasienter i allmennpraksis tilbys kopi av dagens journalnotat?

BACKGROUND: Is it useful for patients in general practice to have a copy of their medical record, and will this increase the quality of the record? What do patients and their doctors think about such a practice? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight general practitioners participated in a study where they should ask their patients if they wanted at copy of their medical record after the consultation. The doctors were asked about what they felt about such a practice. 181 patients participated. RESULTS: 126 patients (70%) wanted to read their medical record. Among these, 118 (94%) reported that the record covered the problem they came for, 104 (83%) that it was useful to read what the doctor had written, and 96 (76%) that this practice should be more common. The doctors answered that the records became somewhat changed and longer and were more time-consuming. Most of the doctors thought that the quality of the medical record improved and that the procedure could well be standardised. INTERPRETATION: The results indicate that many patients in general practice will find it useful to read their medical record. The study may indicate a better quality of the record when doctors are aware that the patients will have a copy.