title: Mutual perception of communication between general practitioners and hospital-based specialists.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Communication between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists is an important aspect of qualitative care. Efficient communication exchange is essential and key in guaranteeing continuity of care. Inefficient communication is related to several negative outcomes, including patient harm. This study aimed to investigate the perception of GPs and hospital-based specialists in Belgium of the quality of their mutual communication.
  
  
  METHODS
  A cross-sectional study was conducted among GPs and specialists. Participants were asked to complete a validated questionnaire on several aspects of their mutual communication.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Response rates of 17.9% (343/1.912) for GPs and 17.3% (392/2.263) for specialists were obtained. Both specialists and GPs qualify their mutual telephone accessibility as suboptimal. Specialists think poorly of the GP referral letter, in contrast to GP perception. Eighty per cent of the GPs feel that specialists address their questions appropriately; specialists have a similar perception of their own performance. According to 16.7% of the specialists, GPs not always follow their recommendations. Contrarily, GPs rate their compliance much higher (90.7%). Less than half of the GPs feel that the specialists' letter arrives on time, whereas specialists have a different and a more positive perception.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  GPs and specialists disagree on several aspects of their mutual communication. These include the perception of accessibility, in both directions, and of the timeliness of written communication. Feedback is positively appreciated, again in both directions. Nevertheless, specialists feel that uptake of their recommendations is insufficient. Hence, there may remain significant room for improvement, which could contribute significantly to continuity of care and patient safety.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital , Belgium.
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Vermeir
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Vandijck
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Degroote
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Ommeslag
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Van De Putte
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Heytens
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Reniers
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Hanoulle
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Peleman
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Vogelaers
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001530:Belgium; D003142:Communication; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D058005:General Practitioners; D020445:Hospitalists; D006801:Humans; D007400:Interprofessional Relations; D008297:Male; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D013038:Specialization; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
keywords: Communication; Health care; Patient safety; Survey