Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/21673
Title: Mutual perception of communication between general practitioners and hospital-based specialists
Authors: Vermeir, P.
VANDIJCK, Dominique 
Degroote, S.
Ommeslag, D.
Van De Putte, M.
Heytens, S.
Reniers, J.
Hanoulle, I.
Peleman, R.
Vogelaers, D.
Issue Date: 2015
Publisher: MANEY PUBLISHING
Source: ACTA CLINICA BELGICA, 70 (5), p. 350-356
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.
Notes: [Vermeir, P.; Vandijck, D.; Degroote, S.; Ommeslag, D.; De Putte, M. Van; Hanoulle, I.; Vogelaers, D.] Ghent Univ Hosp, Dept Gen Internal Med, Ghent, Belgium. [Vermeir, P.; Peleman, R.; Vogelaers, D.] Univ Ghent, Dept Internal Med, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [Vandijck, D.; Degroote, S.] Univ Ghent, Dept Publ Hlth, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. [Vandijck, D.] Hasselt Univ, Dept Patient Safety Hlth Econ & Healthcare Innova, Diepenbeek, Belgium. [Ommeslag, D.] Gen Hosp Sint Lucas, Ghent, Belgium. [Heytens, S.; Reniers, J.] Univ Ghent, Dept Primary Care Med, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Keywords: communication; health care; patient safety; survey;Communication; Health care; Patient safety; Survey
Document URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/21673
ISSN: 1784-3286
e-ISSN: 2295-3337
DOI: 10.1179/2295333715Y.0000000032
ISI #: 000369183700008
Rights: © Acta Clinica Belgica 2015
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Validations: ecoom 2017
Appears in Collections:Research publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
vermeir2015.pdf
  Restricted Access
Published version397.18 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

5
checked on Sep 2, 2020

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

12
checked on Apr 30, 2024

Page view(s)

48
checked on Sep 7, 2022

Download(s)

42
checked on Sep 7, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.