Improving the letters we write: an exploration of doctor-doctor communication in cancer care

被引:60
作者
McConnell, D
Butow, PN
Tattersall, MHN [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Dept Canc Med, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Med Psychol Unit, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Dept Psychol Med, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
关键词
letters; referrals; cancer consultation; multidisciplinary care; communication;
D O I
10.1038/sj.bjc.6690374
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Referral and reply letters are common means by which doctors exchange information pertinent to patient care. Twenty-eight semistructured interviews were conducted exploring the views of oncologists, referring surgeons and general practitioners. Twenty-seven categories of information in referral letters and 32 in reply letters after a consultation were defined. The letters to and from six medical oncologists relating to 20 consecutive new patients were copied, and their content analysed. Oncologists, surgeons and general practitioners Australia wide were surveyed using questionnaires developed on data obtained above. Only four of 27 categories of referral information appear regularly (in > 50%) in referral letters. Oncologists want most to receive information regarding the patient's medical status, the involvement of other doctors, and any special considerations. Referring surgeons and family doctors identified delay in receiving the consultant's reply letter as of greatest concern, and insufficient detail as relatively common problems. Reply letters include more information regarding patient history/background than the recipients would like. Referring surgeons and family doctors want information regarding the proposed treatment. expected outcomes, and any psychosocial concerns, yet these items are often omitted. Consultants and referring doctors need to review, and modify their letter writing practices.
引用
收藏
页码:427 / +
页数:11
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]   CONTEMPORARY THEMES - USEFULNESS OF LETTERS FROM HOSPITALS TO GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS [J].
BADO, W ;
WILLIAMS, CJ .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1984, 288 (6433) :1813-1814
[2]   COMMUNICATION FAILURE IN PRIMARY CARE - FAILURE OF CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION [J].
CUMMINS, RO ;
SMITH, RW ;
INUI, TS .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1980, 243 (16) :1650-1652
[3]  
Epstein R M, 1995, Arch Fam Med, V4, P403, DOI 10.1001/archfami.4.5.403
[4]  
Glaser BG., 2008, Status Passage, V2
[5]   IMPROVING COMMUNICATION WITH SPECIALISTS - THE CASE OF AN ONCOLOGY CLINIC [J].
GRAHAM, PH .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 1994, 160 (10) :625-627
[6]   REFERRAL TO MEDICAL OUTPATIENTS DEPARTMENT AT TEACHING HOSPITALS IN BIRMINGHAM AND AMSTERDAM [J].
HULL, FM ;
WESTERMAN, RF .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1986, 293 (6542) :311-314
[7]   WRITING TO REFERRING DOCTORS [J].
KAMIEN, M .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1995, 25 (05) :463-464
[8]   HOW GOOD IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS AND SUBSPECIALTY CONSULTANTS [J].
MCPHEE, SJ ;
LO, B ;
SAIKA, GY ;
MELTZER, R .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1984, 144 (06) :1265-1268
[9]   COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS AND CONSULTANTS - WHAT SHOULD THEIR LETTERS CONTAIN [J].
NEWTON, J ;
ECCLES, M ;
HUTCHINSON, A .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1992, 304 (6830) :821-824
[10]  
NUTTING PA, 1992, J FAM PRACTICE, V35, P21