PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8672641

[Does the communication between primary and secondary levels function?].

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality of information transmitted by the interclinical form (DI-1) between primary and secondary care levels; and the frequency and causes of the primary care doctor's not receiving a reply. DESIGN: Descriptive and blind for the doctors taking part. SETTING: Seven health centres and 12 specialist out-clinics in the Bizkaia Health region. PARTICIPANTS: The DIs issued by 43 general practitioners and answers from the specialists. INTERVENTIONS: We recorded all the referrals during a 7-day period (18-26 April 1994). After the normal waiting time we went to the centres to collect the returned DIs. Patients whose form was not found in the records were phoned. Five people (3 family doctors: one as Director and two specialists) evaluated the DI, in line with established criteria. RESULTS: Information was lost in 78% of the total number of referrals. The main cause was the specialist not replying (50.7%); the second, the route the form took and the patient (20.9%). The quality of information of the DI analysed was good/acceptable in 92.5% of those issued and in 90% of replies. CONCLUSIONS: The high percentage loss of information was mainly due to the specialist and, secondly, to the route taken and patient. We recommended the introduction of internal mail between both levels and a study of the attitudes and expectations of the professionals concerned in order to improve the interrelationship and quality of health provision.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Irazábal Olabarrieta, B Gutiérrez Ruiz. 1996-04-15. [Does the communication between primary and secondary levels function?].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8672641/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Recognizing noun phrases in medical discharge summaries: an evaluation of two natural language parsers.

We evaluated the ability of two natural language parsers, CLARIT and the Xerox Tagger, to identify simple, noun phrases in medical discharge summaries. In twenty randomly selected discharge summaries, there were 1909 unique simple noun phrases. CLARIT and the Xerox Tagger exactly identified 77.0% and 68.7% of the phrases, respectively, and partially identified 85.7% and 80.8% of the phrases. Neither system had been specially modified or tuned to the medical domain. These results suggest that it is possible to apply existing natural language processing (NLP) techniques to large bodies of medical text, in order to empirically identify the terminology used in medicine. Virtually all the noun phrases could be regarded as having special medical connotation and would be candidates for entry into a controlled medical vocabulary.

Medical Records

Empirical, automated vocabulary discovery using large text corpora and advanced natural language processing tools.

A major impediment to the full benefit of electronic medical records is the lack of a comprehensive clinical vocabulary. Most existing vocabularies do not allow the full expressiveness of clinical diagnoses and findings that are often qualified by modifiers relating to severity, acuity, and temporal factors. One reason for the lack of expressivity is the inability of traditional manual construction techniques to identify the diversity of language used by clinicians. This study used advanced natural language processing tools to identify terminology in a clinical findings domain, compare its coverage with the UMLS Metathesaurus, and quantify the effort required to discover the additional terminology. It was found that substantial amounts of phrases and individual modifiers were not present in the UMLS Metathesaurus and that modest effort in human time and computer processing were needed to obtain the larger quantity of terms.

Medical Records