Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
  • Log out
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
Research ArticlePractice

Tool to assess the quality of consultation and referral request letters in family medicine

José François
Canadian Family Physician May 2011, 57 (5) 574-575;
José François
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: francois@cc.umanitoba.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Good communication is essential to a safe and high-quality consultation and referral process. With the move to providing more patient care on an outpatient basis, there is now often little direct contact between primary care physicians and other specialists. As a result, written communication, in the form of consultation or referral requests and reply letters, is the most common—and sometimes sole—means by which doctors exchange information pertinent to patient care.1–5 Poor communication in the consultation and referral process can have adverse effects on patient care by delaying diagnoses, leading to the repetition of investigations, and increasing polypharmacy, which might also increase health care costs.6 Studies have shown that both primary care physicians and other specialists are often dissatisfied with the quality and content of written communication between colleagues.4,7,8

Although competency in written communication is essential, most Canadian physicians have not received any training or feedback about their letters.9,10 Although there exists a considerable body of literature concerning effective consultation and referral, surveys of communication skills programs show that written communication is seldom the focus of formal instruction in medical education.11

In 1993, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada developed a joint task force to examine the relationship between family physicians and specialist consultants. Both its 1993 report and its 2006 follow-up report outlined a number of themes relevant to medical education, including the recommendation that all medical trainees receive instruction and feedback on the preparation of medical reports for other physicians.12,13

The evaluation of written communication should be part of any ambulatory-based rotation, but the lack of validated assessment tools has been identified as a barrier to effective teaching of these skills.14,15 The use of a rating scale as an assessment tool has been shown to facilitate delivery of detailed formative feedback to learners in specialty areas.16–18 At present no tools exist for the assessment of letters written by family medicine learners. As part of a larger educational intervention to improve the ability of family medicine residents to write effective consultation and referral request letters, an 18-point assessment scale was developed.

Development of an assessment tool

Based on a systematic literature review of articles published between 1970 and 2005, the current gaps in referral and consultation request letters and their desired content were identified.1,7,8,19–22 This literature provided the basis for the construction of an assessment tool with face validity for consultation and referral request letters. In addition, writing-style items such as sentence and paragraph length were included. These were based on consensus literature on good practice in correspondence, as well as previous work on the development of evaluation tools for specialty residents’ letters.17–19,23,24

The initial tool included dichotomous scales for 13 content and 3 style items, and it also included a 5-point Likert scale with anchors used to provide an overall rating for each letter.

To ensure clarity and reproducibility, the prototype assessment instrument was then pilot-tested by 10 family physician educators from the University of Manitoba’s Family Medicine Residency Training Program using the tool to score 2 standardized letters.

After analysis, the questions used in the tool appeared to form a reliable scale, as there was a high level of agreement between the global rating of a letter and the sum of the checklist items (Pearson coefficient = 0.88). Some items had very high rates of endorsement (raters all scored yes or no), suggesting that dichotomous items did not individually contribute to the discriminating power of the instrument. However, dichotomous items (yes or no items) do play an important role in facilitating the work of raters in assigning global scores and are also believed to be valuable in the provision of formative feedback.18,25 Interrater reliability of the tool was assessed by analyzing the variance between raters’ scores in both the individual items from the tool and in the total score. The intraclass correlation coefficient for dichotomous items was 0.36, and for the overall rating scale it was 0.67. Simple interrater reliability for the overall score was 0.83.

Based on these results and on feedback from raters, the assessment tool was then modified to its final format (Table 1) and it has subsequently been used within the residency program.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

A tool to assess the quality of consultation and referral request letters

Use of the tool

Using the tool requires very little time or effort, and it is easily integrated into the clinical teaching context. Because the assessment process uses routinely generated data (dictated letters), it does not generate much extra work for residents or family physician teachers; however, there is some concern that this might generate extra work for typists, as residents might do extensive revisions of their letters.

The tool can be used in different ways. Residents can use the tool as a guide when writing letters or as a self-assessment activity when reviewing their letters before sending them out. Family medicine teachers can also use the tool to structure their feedback of residents’ letters.

Conclusion

The described tool appears to meet criteria for a good assessment instrument: it has validity, reliability, and feasibility. The content and style items of the instrument were derived directly from a framework for good practice in written communication. Family medicine teachers provided input to its final composition, and a consensus was achieved. The final product is consistent with the literature on good practice in written communication.

More important, this tool addresses a gap in our curriculum and helps learners to successfully complete one of the most commonly performed writing tasks required of primary care physicians.

Acknowledgments

The research project on which this article is based received support from a Janus Grant from the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. ↵
    1. Long A,
    2. Atkins JB
    . Communications between general practitioners and consultants. BMJ 1974;4(5942):456-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Westerman RF,
    2. Hull FM,
    3. Bezemer PD,
    4. Gort G
    . A study of communication between general practitioners and specialists. Br J Gen Pract 1990;40(340):445-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Tattersall MH,
    2. Griffin A,
    3. Dunn SM,
    4. Monaghan H,
    5. Scatchard K,
    6. Butow PN
    . Writing to referring doctors after a new patient consultation. What is wanted and what was contained in letters from one medical oncologist? Aust N Z J Med 1995;25(5):479-82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Tattersall MH,
    2. Butow PN,
    3. Brown JE,
    4. Thompson JF
    . Improving doctors’ letters. Med J Aust 2002;177(9):516-20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Gandhi T,
    2. Sittig DF,
    3. Franklin M,
    4. Sussman AJ,
    5. Fairchild DG,
    6. Bates DW
    . Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15(9):626-31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Epstein RM
    . Communication between primary care physicians and consultants. Arch Fam Med 1995;4(5):403-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Newton J,
    2. Eccles M,
    3. Hutchinson A
    . Communication between general practitioners and consultants: what should their letters contain? BMJ 1992;304(6830):821-4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Newton J,
    2. Hutchinson A,
    3. Hayes V,
    4. McColl E,
    5. Mackee I,
    6. Holland C
    . Do clinicians tell each other enough? An analysis of referral communication in two specialties. Fam Pract 1994;11(1):15-20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Dojeiji S,
    2. Marks M,
    3. Keely E
    . Referral and consultation letters: enhancing communication between family physicians and specialists. Clin Invest Med 1997;20(4):S49.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Lingard L,
    2. Hodges B,
    3. MacRae H,
    4. Freeman R
    . Expert and trainee determinations of rhetorical relevance in referral and consultation letters. Med Educ 2004;38(2):168-76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Nestel D,
    2. Kidd J
    . Teaching and learning about written communications in a United Kingdom medical school. Educ Health (Abingdon) 2004;17(1):27-34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. College of Family Physicians of Canada, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
    . Relationship between family physicians and specialist/consultants in the provision of patient care. Can Fam Physician 1993;39:1309-12, 1316-20. Eng. (Fr).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. College of Family Physicians of Canada, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
    . Family physicians and other specialists: working and learning together. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2006. Available from: www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Resources/Resource_Items/Conjoint20Discussion20Paper.pdf. Accessed 2011 Mar 30.
  12. ↵
    1. Eichholz AC,
    2. Van Voorhis BJ,
    3. Sorosky JI,
    4. Smith BJ,
    5. Sood AK
    . Operative note dictation: should it be taught routinely in residency programs? Obstet Gynecol 2004;103(2):342-6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Vergis A,
    2. Gillman L,
    3. Minor S,
    4. Taylor M,
    5. Park J
    . Structured assessment format for evaluating operative reports in general surgery. Am J Surg 2008;195(1):24-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Myers KA,
    2. Keely E,
    3. Dojeiji S,
    4. Norman GR
    . Development of a rating scale to evaluate written communication skills of residents. Acad Med 1999;74(10):S111-3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Keely E,
    2. Myers K,
    3. Dojeiji S,
    4. Campbell C
    . Peer assessment of outpatient consultation letters—feasibility and satisfaction. BMC Med Educ 2007;7:13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Crossley GM,
    2. Howe A,
    3. Newble D,
    4. Davies HA
    . Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters (SAIL): performance assessment using outpatient letters. Med Educ 2001;35(12):1115-24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hansen JP,
    2. Brown SE,
    3. Sullivan RJ Jr.,
    4. Muhlbaier LH
    . Factors related to an effective referral and consultation process. J Fam Pract 1982;15(4):651-6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Jenkins RM
    . Quality of general practitioner referrals to outpatient departments: assessment by specialists and a general practitioner. Br J Gen Pract 1993;43(368):111-3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Graham PH
    . Improving communication with specialists: the case of an oncology clinic. Med J Aust 1994;160(10):625-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Campbell B,
    2. Vanslembroek K,
    3. Whitehead E,
    4. van de Wauwer C,
    5. Eifell R,
    6. Wyatt M,
    7. et al
    . Views of doctors on clinical correspondence: questionnaire survey and audit of content of letters. BMJ 2004;328(7447):1060-1.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Dwyer J
    . The business communication handbook. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall; 1993.
  20. ↵
    1. Keely E,
    2. Dojeiji S,
    3. Myers K
    . Writing effective consultation letters: 12 tips for teachers. Med Teach 2002;24(6):585-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Hodges B,
    2. Regehr G,
    3. Hanson M,
    4. McNaughton N
    . An objective structured clinical examination for evaluating psychiatric clinical clerks. Acad Med 1997;72(8):715-21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 57 (5)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 57, Issue 5
1 May 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Tool to assess the quality of consultation and referral request letters in family medicine
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Tool to assess the quality of consultation and referral request letters in family medicine
José François
Canadian Family Physician May 2011, 57 (5) 574-575;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Tool to assess the quality of consultation and referral request letters in family medicine
José François
Canadian Family Physician May 2011, 57 (5) 574-575;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Development of an assessment tool
    • Use of the tool
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The both of us
  • Nous deux
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Assessment of the effect of an Interactive Dynamic Referral Interface (IDRI) on the quality of referral letters from general practitioners to gastroenterologists: a randomised cross-over vignette trial
  • First quality score for referral letters in gastroenterology--a validation study
  • The both of us
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Practice

  • Managing type 2 diabetes in primary care during COVID-19
  • Effectiveness of dermoscopy in skin cancer diagnosis
  • Spontaneous pneumothorax in children
Show more Practice

Praxis

  • Examens et traitements à reconsidérer en médecine du sport et de l’exercice pédiatrique
  • Tests and treatments to question in pediatric sport and exercise medicine
  • Optimizing delirium assessment, management, and prevention
Show more Praxis

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire