Display options
Cite
Guevara JP, Hsu D, Forrest CB. Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:168doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-168.
Guevara, J. P., Hsu, D., & Forrest, C. B. (2011). Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature. BMC health services research, 11168. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-168
Guevara, James P, et al. "Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature." BMC health services research vol. 11 (2011): 168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-168
Guevara JP, Hsu D, Forrest CB. Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Jul 13;11:168. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-168. PMID: 21752285; PMCID: PMC3155905.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Jul 13;11:168. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-168.

Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature.

BMC health services research

James P Guevara, Diane Hsu, Christopher B Forrest

Affiliations

  1. Center to Bridge Research, Practice, & Policy, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. [email protected]

PMID: 21752285 PMCID: PMC3155905 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-168

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Performance of specialty referrals is coming under scrutiny, but a lack of identifiable measures impedes measurement efforts. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify published measures that assess specialty referrals.

METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature for measures of specialty referral. Searches were made of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases, references of eligible papers, and citations provided by content experts. Measures were eligible if they were published from January 1973 to June 2009, reported on validity and/or reliability of the measure, and were applicable to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development healthcare systems. We classified measures according to a conceptual framework, which underwent content validation with an expert panel.

RESULTS: We identified 2,964 potentially eligible papers. After abstract and full-text review, we selected 214 papers containing 244 measures. Most measures were applied in adults (57%), assessed structural elements of the referral process (60%), and collected data via survey (62%). Measures were classified into non-mutually exclusive domains: need for specialty care (N = 14), referral initiation (N = 73), entry into specialty care (N = 53), coordination (N = 60), referral type (N = 3), clinical tasks (N = 19), resource use (N = 13), quality (N = 57), and outcomes (N = 9).

CONCLUSIONS: Published measures are available to assess the specialty referral process, although some domains are limited. Because many of these measures have been not been extensively validated in general populations, assess limited aspects of the referral process, and require new data collection, their applicability and preference in assessment of the specialty referral process is needed.

References

  1. Med Care Res Rev. 2000 Jun;57(2):161-81 - PubMed
  2. Health Serv Res. 2000 Aug;35(3):707-34 - PubMed
  3. Med Care Res Rev. 1998 Mar;55(1):3-31 - PubMed
  4. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985 Jan 5;290(6461):31-3 - PubMed
  5. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2004 Dec;16(6):689-92 - PubMed
  6. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005 Mar-Apr;18(2):87-96 - PubMed
  7. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;21(5):427-40 - PubMed
  8. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1983;17(2):163-7 - PubMed
  9. N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 27;331(17):1136-42 - PubMed
  10. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2002 Mar-Apr;23(2):110-5 - PubMed
  11. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan-Jun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-43-59 - PubMed
  12. J R Soc Med. 1991 Jul;84(7):403-4 - PubMed
  13. Med Care. 1988 Apr;26(4):393-402 - PubMed
  14. Med Decis Making. 1998 Jul-Sep;18(3):320-9 - PubMed
  15. Cancer. 2004 Oct 15;101(8):1712-9 - PubMed
  16. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502 - PubMed
  17. BMJ. 2007 Aug 4;335(7613):218-9 - PubMed
  18. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Jul;153(7):705-14 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):779-80 - PubMed
  20. Med Care. 2001 May;39(5):491-9 - PubMed
  21. Med Care. 1982 Aug;20(8):782-96 - PubMed
  22. Qual Life Res. 2009 Aug;18(6):783-91 - PubMed
  23. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 21;347(21):1678-86 - PubMed
  24. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jan 8;167(1):10-20 - PubMed
  25. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Aug;14(8):499-511 - PubMed
  26. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Sep 14;158(16):1778-83 - PubMed
  27. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):273-87 - PubMed
  28. BMJ. 2002 Jan 19;324(7330):135-41 - PubMed
  29. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997 Nov-Dec;16(6):157-62 - PubMed
  30. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Aug;14(8):474-80 - PubMed
  31. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jan-Feb;21(1):140-54 - PubMed
  32. Pediatrics. 2003 Dec;112(6 Pt 1):1314-20 - PubMed
  33. Am J Psychiatry. 1954 Nov;111(5):343-52 - PubMed
  34. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Aug 10-24;158(15):1596-608 - PubMed
  35. J Fam Pract. 1997 Dec;45(6):500-8 - PubMed
  36. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1988 Nov;38(316):494-7 - PubMed
  37. BMJ. 2007 Aug 4;335(7613):236-8 - PubMed
  38. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Apr;17(4):258-69 - PubMed
  39. Am J Manag Care. 2009 Jan;15(1):41-8 - PubMed
  40. Br J Gen Pract. 1998 Dec;48(437):1828-32 - PubMed
  41. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Mar;11(1):85-92 - PubMed
  42. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Feb;48(4):547-57 - PubMed
  43. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Jun 8;169(11):1062-8 - PubMed
  44. Arch Intern Med. 2002 Mar 11;162(5):527-32 - PubMed
  45. J Fam Pract. 2002 Mar;51(3):215-22 - PubMed
  46. JAMA. 1988 Sep 23-30;260(12):1743-8 - PubMed
  47. Health Serv Res. 1971 Spring;6(1):39-48 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types