Computer-generated correspondence for patients attending an open-access chest pain clinic.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether general practitioners (GPs) prefer structured computer-generated or standard dictated outpatient clinic letters.


METHODS
Questionnaire survey of all GPs referring patients to an open-access chest pain clinic at a district general hospital in London. The GPs were asked to compare three twinned examples of structured computer-generated and unstructured dictated letters.


RESULTS
Of 93 respondents (response rate 77.5%), 75 (80.6%) preferred the computer-generated letter and 16 (17.2%) preferred the dictated letter (p < 0.0005). The preferred features of the computer-generated letter were its clear presentation, subheadings, and concise information. The computer-generated letter scored significantly higher than the dictated letter: for clarity, mean 8.2 vs 6.5 (p < 0.0005); content, mean 8.5 vs 6.9 (p < 0.0005); and readability, mean 8.2 vs 6.8 (p < 0.0005). The GPs in the survey considered a mean delay of 3.4 days to be acceptable for receiving the letter from the chest pain clinic.


CONCLUSIONS
GPs prefer structured computer-generated letters to unstructured dictated letters for patients referred to an open-access chest pain clinic. Computer-generated correspondence allows rapid feedback of information to the referring GP, one of the key requirements of open-access clinics.
Ray
S
S
Department of Cardiology, Newham General Hospital, London.
Archbold
R A
RA
Preston
S
S
Ranjadayalan
K
K
Suliman
A
A
Timmis
A D
AD
D000554:Ambulatory Care Facilities; D002637:Chest Pain; D003201:Computers; D015709:Correspondence as Topic; D005194:Family Practice; D006801:Humans; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires