Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kinnersley, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stott, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kinnersley, P.
Right arrow Articles by Stott, N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 6, 558-561
© Oxford University Press 1999

In-house referral: a primary care alternative to immediate secondary care referral?

Paul Kinnersley, Frances Maggs Rapport, Penny Owena and Nigel Stott

Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Llanedeyrn Health Centre, Cardiff CF3 7PN and
a Llanedeyrn Health Centre, Cardiff, UK.

Background. Methods are needed to ensure that those patients referred from primary to secondary care are those most likely to benefit. In-house referral is the referral of a patient by a general practitioner to another general practitioner within the same practice for a second opinion on the need for secondary care referral.

Objective. To describe whether in-house referral is practical and acceptable to patients, and the health outcomes for patients.

Methods. Practices were randomized into an intervention or a control group. In intervention practices, patients with certain conditions who were about to be referred to secondary care were referred in-house. If the second clinician agreed referral was appropriate the patient was referred on to secondary care. In control practices patients were referred in the usual fashion. Patient satisfaction and health status was measured at the time of referral, 6 months and one year.

Results. Eight intervention and seven control practices took part. For the 177 patients referred in-house, 109 (61%) were judged to need referral on to secondary care. For patient satisfaction, the only difference between the groups studied was that at 12 months patients who had been referred in-house reported themselves as being more satisfied than those referred directly to hospital. For health status, the only difference found was that at the time of referral, patients who had been referred in-house and judged to need hospital referral reported themselves as being less able on the ‘Physical function’ subscale of the SF-36 than patients who were referred in-house and judged to not need hospital referral.

Conclusion. In-house referral is acceptable to patients and provides a straightforward method of addressing uncertainty over the need for referral from primary to secondary care.

Keywords. General practice, hospital referral, primary care, secondary care..


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.