Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Aug 8:9:143.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-143.

How do general practitioners and specialists value their mutual communication? A survey

Affiliations

How do general practitioners and specialists value their mutual communication? A survey

Annette J Berendsen et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Communication between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists is important, if we want patients to receive the right type of care at the right moment. Most communication takes place through telephone contact, letters concerning information on patients more recently also by email, and joint postgraduate training. As much research has been aimed at the content of communication between GPs and specialists, we wished to address the procedural aspects of this communication. We addressed the following research question. How do GPs and specialists assess their mutual communication through telephone, letters and postgraduate courses?

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among a random sample of 550 GPs and 533 specialists selected from the Netherlands Medical Address Book. The response rate was 47% GPs (n = 259) and 44% specialists (n = 232).

Results: Specialists qualify the GPs' telephone accessibility as poor; while GPs themselves do not. Specialists think poorly of the GPs' referral letter. Merely half of GPs feels their questions are addressed appropriately by the specialist, whereas specialists think this number is considerably higher. According to specialists, GPs often do not follow the advice given by them. GPs rate their compliance much higher. Less than a quarter of GPs feel the specialist's letter arrives on time. Specialists have a different perception of this.Both parties wish to receive feedback from one and other, while in practice they do so very little.

Conclusion: GPs and specialists disagree on several aspects of their communication. This impedes improvements. Both GP's accessibility by phone and time span to the specialist's report could be earmarked as performance indicators. GPs and specialists should discuss amongst themselves how best to compose a format for the referral letter and the specialist's report and how to go about exchanging mutual feedback.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R. Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ. 2003;327:1219–1221. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1219. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Newton J, Eccles M, Hutchinson A. Communication between general practitioners and consultants: what should their letters contain? BMJ. 1992;304:821–824. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6830.821. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marshall MN. Qualitative study of educational interaction between general practitioners and specialists. BMJ. 1998;316:442–445. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tent B, Boendermaker PM, Schuling J. De Breedenburg, nascholing volgens het Warffummodel. Wat kan de geschiedenis ons leren? Huisarts Wet. 2006;49:270–273.
    1. Hollins J, Veitch C, Hays R. Interpractitioner communication: telephone consultations between rural general practitioners and specialists. Aust J Rural Health. 2000;8:227–231. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1584.2000.00285.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types