rss
Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18:59-62 doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.025486
  • Original Article

Audit of the consultation process on general internal medicine services

  1. J Conley,
  2. M Jordan,
  3. W A Ghali
  1. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  1. Dr W A Ghali, Centre for Health and Policy Studies, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4N1; wghali{at}ucalgary.ca
  • Accepted 2 March 2008

Abstract

Objective: To determine the proportion of consultations requested by general internal medicine services that communicate key components of the consultation process to medical subspecialists.

Design: Retrospective chart review by two researchers, using a standardised chart abstraction instrument (93.1% agreement, κ 0.85).

Setting: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Sample: A random sample of medical consultations was selected from those generated on two medical teaching units (MTUs) from 2003 to 2004.

Measurements: The primary measure of interest was whether a “clear clinical question” was posed to the subspecialist, a binary variable.

Results: Two hundred consultations were sampled from the 2885 subspecialty consultations. Of the selected consultations, 94.0% (188/200) were available for review. A clear clinical question was posed in 69.7% (131/188) of consultations (CI 0.63 to 0.74). In a secondary analysis involving a larger sample permitting comparison across subspecialties, 95.1% (368/387) of the consultations, representative of the subspecialties, were available for review. An MTU member contacted the subspecialist for 74.2% of consultations. If a consultation was urgent, a member of the MTU contacted the subspecialist in 81.0% of consultations. Of these urgent consultations, 63.3% had a clear clinical question.

Conclusion: More than one in four consultations does not contain a clear clinical question, illustrating suboptimal communication between physicians. Innovative strategies that provide a sustainable solution for overcoming barriers to communication could have a significant impact on quality of care.

Footnotes

  • Funding: WG is funded by the government of Canada Research Chair in health services research and by the Health Scholar Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for medical research.

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.