MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791110884 · doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4356-3

Valued Components of a Consultant Letter from Referring Physicians’ Perspective: a Systematic Literature Synthesis

2018· review· en· W2791110884 on OpenAlexaff
Arjun Rash, Robert S. Sheldon, Maoliosa Donald, Cindy Eronmwon, Vikas Kuriachan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Internal Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewObservational studyFamily medicineHealth careAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective communication between the consultants and physicians form an integral foundation of effective and expert patient care. A broad review of the literature has not been undertaken to determine the components of a consultant's letter of most value to the referring physician. We aimed to identify the components of a consultant's letter preferred by referring physicians. METHODS: We searched Embase and MEDLINE (OVID) Medicine (EBM) Reviews and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for English articles with no restriction on initial date to January 6, 2017. Articles containing letters from specialists to referring physicians regarding outpatient assessments with either an observational or experimental design were included. Studies were excluded if they pertained to communications from referring physicians to consultant specialists, or pertained to allied health professionals, inpatient documents, or opinion articles. We enumerated the frequencies with which three common themes were addressed, and the positive or negative nature of the comments. The three themes were the structure of consultant letters, their contents, and whether referring physicians and consultants shared a common opinion about the items. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were included in our synthesis. In 11 reports, 91% of respondents preferred structured formats. Other preferred structural features were problem lists and brevity (four reports each). The most preferred contents were oriented to insight: diagnosis, prognosis, and management plan (16/21 mentions in the top tertile). Data items such as history, physical examination, and medication lists were less important (1/23 mentions in the top tertile). Reports varied as to whether referring physicians and consultants shared common opinions about letter features. CONCLUSIONS: Referring physicians prefer brief, structured letters from consultants that feature diagnostic and prognostic opinions and management plans over unstructured letters that emphasize data elements such as detailed histories and medication lists. Whether these features improve outcomes is unknown.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General Internal MedicineSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207