Digital Repository

Why are specialists reluctant to reply to referral letters-exploring the views of specialists in Sri Lanka

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Ramanayake, R.P.J.C.
dc.contributor.author Perera, D.P.
dc.contributor.author de Silva, A.H.W.
dc.contributor.author Sumanasekera, R.D.N.
dc.contributor.author Fernando, K.A.T.
dc.contributor.author Jayasinghe, L.R.
dc.contributor.author Athukorala, L.A.C.L.
dc.date.accessioned 2023-05-23T19:51:34Z
dc.date.available 2023-05-23T19:51:34Z
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.citation TheHealth.2014; 5(3-4):44-48 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2219-8083-Online
dc.identifier.issn 2218-3299-Print
dc.identifier.uri http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/26321
dc.description Not Indexed en_US
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: The referral letter from General Practitioner and the reply from the Specialist is the interface between the primary and secondary/tertiary levels of care. It facilitates the referral process and is beneficial for optimizing patient care. In Sri Lanka there is no established referral/back referral system. Not receiving a response to their referrals is a common grievance made by most primary care doctors. In this scenario, the views of Specialists were explored on the importance of reply letters and measures to improve communication. METHOD: Conducted in 2013, this study consisted of in-depth interviews using a semi-structured format, with 21 purposively selected Specialists representing a range of specialties. They included clinicians and university academics from both the government and the private sector. Specialists rarely contacting a GP, such as anesthesiologists and microbiologists, were not invited to participate. Analysis was by generating a thematic framework based on the recurrent themes and issues which was then applied to the textual data. RESULTS: Most Specialists identify that it is important to reply to referrals. These reply letters provide the Primary care doctors with a further management plan, enhance continuity of care and is a source of education to the General Practitioner. Despite the above benefits, the practice of writing a reply is dependent on the following factors: time constraints, lack of clerical assistance, known General Practitioner, patient’s condition and the quality of the referral letter. As methods of improving communication between primary and secondary care it was suggested that referrals be made mandatory to be seen by a Specialist, improving informal communication between Specialists and GPs via regional clinical meetings and introducing a structured referral letter with an attached reply form. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists acknowledge the importance of reply letters in the referral process. Further steps need to be taken to improve the reply rates. This includes changes that need to occur in the referring General Practitioners, Specialists and the practicing institutions creating an environment that is conducive to the referral process. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Lahore Institute of Public Health(liphealth) en_US
dc.subject General Practitioners en_US
dc.subject Students, Medical en
dc.title Why are specialists reluctant to reply to referral letters-exploring the views of specialists in Sri Lanka en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search Digital Repository


Browse

My Account