Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:946-947 (23 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.38253.703553.F7 (published 1 October 2004)
Allison Tso, senior house officer in medicine1, Lucy Harris, medical student1, Tim Littlewood, consultant haematologist1
1 Department of Haematology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU
Correspondence to: T Littlewood tim.littlewood{at}orh.nhs.uk
|
TL sent written responses if the patient neither required further investigation (such as a bone marrow biopsy) nor treatment that would better be done in the haematology department and if no evidence indicated a serious underlying illness, such as malignancy. For example, a mild macrocytosis (mean cellular volume less than 105 fl) without accompanying cytopenia was the commonest referral for which TL sent a written response. In all patients, the blood film had been examined (and was normal apart from the mild macrocytosis) and advice was offered about checking for possible causes of macrocytosis (including vitamin B-12 or folate deficiency, liver disease, hypothyroidism, drug related causes, and excess alcohol consumption), if these factors had not already been considered. TL recommended that the full blood count be repeated in three to six months and that the patient be re-referred if either the macrocytosis had worsened or a cytopenia had developed.
|
We received anonymous replies from 104/121 questionnaires. Of the 104 responses, 101 said that a written response was acceptable and 103 said that the information given was helpful. All the respondents said that they would be satisfied with a written response in the future when deemed appropriate. Seventy two patients were thought to be happy with a written response. The remainder had not been asked for their opinion.
We also received 39 favourable comments, but one general practitioner felt that patients expect to see a consultant after a referral and another felt that anyone needing an explanation of any sort of haematological problem should see a specialist rather than having it explained in writing.
|
A weakness of this study is the lack of analysis of the patients' opinions about a written response. Most general practitioners felt that the patient was happy with the strategy, but any follow up study should ascertain this more formally.
We learnt from the small number of unfavourable comments to include a final sentence in all letters stating that if the referring doctor or the patient was not happy with the written response that they would be seen in the clinic. Since completing this study, five of the patients have been re-referred, of whom three were then reviewed in the outpatients clinic.
We are conscious that this system worked well in one discipline, in one hospital in the United Kingdom. Although it may not be applicable in other settings, this system should at least be applicable to some other haematology departments.
We thank all the general practitioners who completed and returned questionnaires.
Contributors: TL wrote the written responses and was primarily responsible for writing the paper. AT and LH did the audit. TL is guarantor.
Funding: No additional funding.
Competing interests: None declared.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+