title: The quality of communication about older patients between hospital physicians and general practitioners: a panel study assessment.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Optimal care of patients is dependent on good professional interaction between general practitioners and general hospital physicians. In Norway this is mainly based upon referral and discharge letters. The main objectives of this study were to assess the quality of the written communication between physicians and to estimate the number of patients that could have been treated at primary care level instead of at a general hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study comprised referral and discharge letters for 100 patients above 75 years of age admitted to orthopaedic, pulmonary and cardiological departments at the city general hospital in Trondheim, Norway. The assessments were done using a Delphi technique with two expert panels, each with one general hospital specialist, one general practitioner and one public health nurse using a standardised evaluation protocol with a visual analogue scale (VAS). The panels assessed the quality of the description of the patient's actual medical condition, former medical history, signs, medication, Activity of Daily Living (ADL), social network, need of home care and the benefit of general hospital care.
  
  
  RESULTS
  While information in the referral letters on actual medical situation, medical history, symptoms, signs and medications was assessed to be of high quality in 84%, 39%, 56%, 56% and 39%, respectively, the corresponding information assessed to be of high quality in discharge letters was for actual medical situation 96%, medical history 92%, symptoms 60%, signs 55% and medications 82%. Only half of the discharge letters had satisfactory information on ADL. Some two-thirds of the patients were assessed to have had large health benefits from the general hospital care in question. One of six patients could have been treated without a general hospital admission. The specialists assessed that 77% of the patients had had a large benefit from the general hospital care; however, the general practitioners assessment was only 59%. One of four of the discharge letters did not describe who was responsible for follow-up care.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study from one general hospital both referral and discharge letters were missing vital medical information, and referral letters to such an extent that it might represent a health hazard for older patients. There was also low consensus between health professionals at primary and secondary level of what was high benefit of care for older patients at a general hospital.
authors: Department of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. helge.garasen@ntnu.no
authors: Helge
authors: H
authors: Garåsen
authors: Roar
authors: R
authors: Johnsen
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015709:Correspondence as Topic; D003697:Delphi Technique; D015577:Geriatric Assessment; D006300:Health Services Misuse / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006769:Hospitals, General / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000523:psychology*; D009664:Norway; D010343:Patient Admission; D010821:Physicians, Family / Q000523:psychology*; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017064:Process Assessment, Health Care; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards
references: Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Jun;16(3):229-36
references: 15150154
references: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 Mar 18;124(6):810-2
references: 15039817
references: BMJ. 1992 Mar 28;304(6830):821-4
references: 1392712
references: BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
references: 7640549
references: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995 Aug 20;115(19):2373-5
references: 7667851
references: Health Serv Res. 1995 Oct;30(4):577-91
references: 7591782
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Apr;52(4):243-6
references: 9616411
references: N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1896-904
references: 9637811
references: J Qual Clin Pract. 1998 Dec;18(4):241-7
references: 9862661
references: Med Care. 1999 Sep;37(9):964-8
references: 10493474
references: Med Klin (Munich). 2005 Feb 15;100(2):87-93
references: 15711903
references: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2005 Oct 20;125(20):2815-7
references: 16244691
references: Acad Med. 2005 Dec;80(12):1094-9
references: 16306279
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Dec;14(6):401-7
references: 16326783
references: BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:65
references: 17078894
references: J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Feb;13(1):50-4
references: 17286723
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Feb;16(1):34-9
references: 17301202
references: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 Apr 19;127(8):1049-52
references: 17457391
references: BMJ. 1999 Oct 23;319(7217):1127-30
references: 10531112
references: Ugeskr Laeger. 2000 Jan 31;162(5):648-53
references: 10707597
references: Ugeskr Laeger. 2001 Sep 24;163(39):5356-60
references: 11590949
references: Arch Intern Med. 2001 Oct 22;161(19):2317-23
references: 11606147
references: Aust Fam Physician. 2002 Feb;31(2):197-200
references: 11917836
references: Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2002 Sep;219(9):682-5
references: 12410470
references: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2003 Dec 23;123(24):3598-9
references: 14691515
references: Eur J Gen Pract. 2004 Jun;10(2):45-9
references: 15232523