Westerman R F, Hull F M, Bezemer P D, Gort G
Free University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Br J Gen Pract. 1990 Nov;40(340):445-9.
A random sample of referral letters from general practitioners to outpatient departments of general medicine, dermatology, neurology, and gastroenterology at an Amsterdam teaching hospital were analysed together with the specialists' replies for 144 referrals. The pairs of letters were judged by a panel of four general practitioners and four specialists. Letters were assessed according to quality and content, clarity, request for return to general practitioner care, time intervals between referral and consultation and between consultation and the specialist's reply. The judges were also asked to assess whether in their opinion the letters were of value in teaching or were discourteous. Though in general intraobserver agreement on what constitutes a good letter was low, deficiencies were revealed in the quality of letters and there were delays in transmission and missed educational opportunities.
对从阿姆斯特丹一家教学医院的全科医生转介到普通内科、皮肤科、神经科和胃肠科门诊的转诊信随机样本进行了分析,并分析了专家对144例转诊的回复。四名单科医生和四名专家组成的小组对这些信件对进行了评判。根据质量和内容、清晰度、要求转回全科医生护理、转诊与会诊之间以及会诊与专家回复之间的时间间隔对信件进行评估。评委们还被要求评估他们认为这些信件在教学中是否有价值或是否无礼。尽管总体而言,观察者内部对什么是好信件的一致性较低,但信件质量存在缺陷,存在传递延迟和错失教育机会的情况。