Oncology service correspondence: do we communicate?
- PMID: 12581054
- DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1673.2003.01129.x
Oncology service correspondence: do we communicate?
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the content of letters sent from a hospital oncology service regarding the initial assessment of new referrals and the requirements of hospital specialists and General Practitioners (GPs) regarding oncology service correspondence. The content of letters regarding the initial consultation of 204 consecutive new oncology patients was analysed. General Practitioners and referring specialists were sent a 13-point survey to gauge their preferences for the information contained in oncology correspondence pertaining to the initial assessment of an oncology patient. Seventy-two percent of the patients had a letter written following their initial oncology assessment. The GP received a copy of 81% of the letters (58% of the study sample). The diagnosis was recorded in all our letters, and the proposed treatment plan was addressed in 84% of our letters. Both GPs and specialists required information on examination and investigation findings, diagnosis, treatment options, proposed management plan, and what the patient was told. The GPs required further information on current medication, likely side-effects of the proposed management, and clarification of when to contact the oncologist. The majority of the respondents were in favour of a structured letter.
Similar articles
-
Letters from the radiation oncologist: do referring doctors give a damn?Australas Radiol. 1998 Aug;42(3):222-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1998.tb00498.x. Australas Radiol. 1998. PMID: 9727247
-
A study of communication between general practitioners and specialists.Br J Gen Pract. 1990 Nov;40(340):445-9. Br J Gen Pract. 1990. PMID: 2271276 Free PMC article.
-
Patient attitudes to receiving copies of outpatient clinic letters from the ocular oncologist to the referring ophthalmologist and GP.Eye (Lond). 2005 Nov;19(11):1200-4. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701740. Eye (Lond). 2005. PMID: 15486567
-
Use of referral reply letters for continuing medical education: a review.J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2002 Fall;22(4):222-9. doi: 10.1002/chp.1340220406. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2002. PMID: 12613057 Review.
-
Part II. General practitioner-specialist referral process.Intern Med J. 2005 Aug;35(8):491-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00860.x. Intern Med J. 2005. PMID: 16176475 Review.
Cited by
-
Valued Components of a Consultant Letter from Referring Physicians' Perspective: a Systematic Literature Synthesis.J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jun;33(6):948-954. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4356-3. Epub 2018 Mar 5. J Gen Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 29508258 Free PMC article.
-
Outcome progress letter types: parent and physician preferences for letters from pediatric mental health services.Can Fam Physician. 2011 Dec;57(12):e473-81. Can Fam Physician. 2011. PMID: 22170209 Free PMC article.
-
The primary care provider (PCP)-cancer specialist relationship: A systematic review and mixed-methods meta-synthesis.CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Mar;67(2):156-169. doi: 10.3322/caac.21385. Epub 2016 Oct 11. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017. PMID: 27727446 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing continuity of information: essential components of consultation reports.Can Fam Physician. 2009 Jun;55(6):624-5.e1-5. Can Fam Physician. 2009. PMID: 19509210 Free PMC article.
-
What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.Br J Gen Pract. 2024 Dec 26;75(750):e20-e27. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341. Print 2025 Jan. Br J Gen Pract. 2024. PMID: 38806208 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources