Russell Christopher, Sandu Victor, Moroz Isabella, Tran Christopher, Keely Erin, Liddy Clare
Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Telemed J E Health. 2020 Jun;26(6):689-699. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2019.0161. Epub 2019 Oct 9.
Background:Effective communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists plays a key role in providing high-quality patient care. A high-quality referral process should involve referral letters containing all information that is necessary to support shared care between primary and specialty care.
Introduction:There is no consensus on the optimal components of specialist-to-PCP communication after a face-to-face patient encounter or in the context of the emerging field of electronic consultations (eConsult). In this study, we aimed at synthesizing the evidence on key components of a traditional consultation letter and at determining whether they can be applied to eConsult replies.
Methods:We conducted a systematic review by using a narrative synthesis approach. We searched Pubmed and Embase from inception to January/March 2016 (English). Included studies focused on features of specialists' responses to PCPs. We extracted components of a consultation letter that were identified to be of importance to PCPs and attempted to relate their applicability to eConsult replies.
Results:The search revealed 744 potentially relevant citations, of which 65 were deemed eligible for full-text review. Forty-one papers were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 24 studies included in the final synthesis. Important components of consultation letters that were applicable to eConsults included: answering a direct question, providing a diagnosis, providing treatment options, providing education around the case, providing a prognosis, and arranging follow-up, clarity, and organization. Key differences between traditional and eConsult replies included the history and physical investigations, impression, plan, and rationale for plan/education.
Conclusion:When seeking to improve the quality of specialist reply letters in both traditional and eConsult replies, one should consider differences in how information is collected and accessed, the role of each provider, and factors that impact specialist-to-PCP communication.
基层医疗服务提供者(PCP)与专科医生之间的有效沟通在提供高质量患者护理方面起着关键作用。高质量的转诊流程应包括转诊信,其中包含支持基层医疗与专科医疗之间共享护理所需的所有信息。
对于面对面患者会诊后或在新兴的电子会诊(eConsult)背景下,专科医生与基层医疗服务提供者沟通的最佳组成部分尚无共识。在本研究中,我们旨在综合传统会诊信关键组成部分的证据,并确定它们是否可应用于电子会诊回复。
我们采用叙述性综合方法进行系统评价。我们检索了自数据库建立至2016年1月/3月的PubMed和Embase(英文)。纳入的研究聚焦于专科医生对基层医疗服务提供者回复的特征。我们提取了被确定对基层医疗服务提供者重要的会诊信组成部分,并试图将其适用性与电子会诊回复联系起来。
检索共获得744条潜在相关引文,其中65条被认为符合全文审查标准。经全文审查,排除41篇论文,最终综合分析纳入24项研究。适用于电子会诊的会诊信重要组成部分包括:回答直接问题、提供诊断、提供治疗方案、围绕病例进行教育、提供预后信息、安排随访、清晰度和条理性。传统会诊回复与电子会诊回复之间的关键差异包括病史和体格检查、印象、计划以及计划/教育的依据。
在寻求提高传统会诊回复和电子会诊回复中专科医生回信质量时,应考虑信息收集和获取方式的差异、每位提供者的角色以及影响专科医生与基层医疗服务提供者沟通的因素。