Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of referral letters (target specialty, format of correspondence) at time 0 (n = 301) and at time 1 (n = 280)

From: Impact of a referral management “gateway” on the quality of referral letters; a retrospective time series cross sectional review

Specialty referred to

Time 0

Time 1

 

Number (%)

Number (%)

Medical

  

Cardiology

11 (3.7)

18 (6.4)

Dermatology

44 (14.6)

21 (7.5)

Endocrinology

7 (2.3)

8 (2.9)

Gastroenterology

37 (12.3)

37 (13.2)

Neurology

43 (14.3)

29 (10.4)

Pain Team

4 (1.3)

11 (3.9)

Respiratory

7 (2.3)

5 (1.8)

Rheumatology

9 (3.0)

12 (4.3)

Other

7 (2.3)

7 (2.5)

Surgical

  

Breast

6 (2.0)

7 (2.5)

Ear, nose and throat

0 (0.0)

24 (8.6)

General surgery

7 (2.3)

15 (5.4)

Gynaecology

53 (17.6)

30 (10.7)

Orthopaedics

49 (16.3)

39 (13.9)

Vascular

5 (1.7)

7 (2.5)

Other

12 (4.0)

8 (2.9)

Not stated

0 (0.0)

2 (0.7)

Format of referral

Time 0

Time 1

 

Number (%)

Number (%)

Letter only

82 (27.2)

46 (16.4)

Letter plus selected download of data from electronic patient record

196 (65.1)

190 (67.9)

Letter plus unedited additional data

10 (3.3)

4 (1.4)

Other: examples included referral letters with forwarded radiology result, care plan, copies of previous correspondence, another health professional’s letter, other department investigation results and private clinic letter

13 (4.3)

42 (15.0)