Communication between consultants providing advice and referring physicians: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Communication during consultations between referring and consultant physicians is often cited as a source of adverse events, medical error and professional incivility. While existing literature focuses on the role of referring physicians, few studies acknowledge the role of consultant physicians in enhancing communication during consultations. This scoping review aims to identify and synthesise available recommendations to enhance the communication practices of consultants during real-time consultations. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to August 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: English-language publications which describe recommendations, strategies or frameworks to improve the communication practices of consultant physicians during real-time consultations with referring physicians. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The search strategy included the following concepts: consultation, physician, communication, interprofessional relations and best practice. Two authors independently performed each phase of title and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. Extracted data were iteratively analysed and summarised thematically. RESULTS: Sixteen publications met the inclusion criteria. Synthesis of available recommendations identified organisation, expertise and interpersonal skills as three overarching and interconnected dimensions of communication demonstrated by consultants during effective consultations. Twelve studies identified interpersonal skills as being critical in alleviating the widespread professional incivility that is reported during consultations. Existing recommendations to improve the communication practices of consultants are limited as they lack standardised interventions and fail to comprehensively address all three elements identified in this review. CONCLUSION: This scoping review synthesises available recommendations to improve the communication practices of consultant physicians during real-time consultations. An opportunity exists to develop communication tools or educational interventions based on the findings of this review to enhance interphysician consultation encounters.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".