» Articles » PMID: 35441300

How Referring Providers Choose Specialists for Their Patients: a Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2022 Apr 20
PMID 35441300
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Physician referrals are a critical step in directing patients to high-quality specialists. Despite efforts to encourage referrals to high-volume hospitals, many patients receive treatment at low-volume centers with worse outcomes. We aimed to determine the most important factors considered by referring providers when selecting specialists for their patients through a systematic review of medical and surgical literature.

Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched from January 2000 to July 2021 using terms related to referrals, specialty, surgery, primary care, and decision-making. We included survey and interview studies reporting the factors considered by healthcare providers as they refer patients to specialists in the USA. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Quality was assessed using the CASP Checklist. A qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize common decision factors across studies.

Results: We screened 1,972 abstracts and identified 7 studies for inclusion, reporting on 1,575 providers. Thematic analysis showed that referring providers consider factors related to the specialist's clinical expertise (skill, training, outcomes, and assessments), interactions between the patient and specialist (prior experience, rapport, location, scheduling, preference, and insurance), and interactions between the referring physician and specialist (personal relationships, communication, reputation, reciprocity, and practice or system affiliation). Notably, studies did not describe how providers assess clinical or technical skills.

Conclusions: Referring providers rely on subjective factors and assessments to evaluate quality when selecting a specialist. There may be a role for guidelines and objective measures of quality to inform the choice of specialist by referring providers.

Citing Articles

Surgical Second Opinion for Pancreatic Cancer Patients.

Quinn P, Nikahd M, Saiyed S, Heifetz A, Bath N, Hyer J J Am Coll Surg. 2024; 240(3):270-278.

PMID: 39297812 PMC: 11828680. DOI: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000001213.


Comparison of Simulated Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Surgery at the Highest-Performing vs Chosen Local Hospitals.

Finn C, Wirtalla C, Roberts S, Collier K, Mehta S, Guerra C JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(2):e2255999.

PMID: 36790809 PMC: 9932827. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55999.


Simulated data-driven hospital selection for surgical treatment of well-differentiated thyroid cancer in older adults.

Finn C, Wirtalla C, Mascuilli T, Krumeich L, Wachtel H, Fraker D Surgery. 2022; 173(1):207-214.

PMID: 36280510 PMC: 10257995. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.05.047.

References
1.
Sehgal A . The role of reputation in U.S. News & World Report's rankings of the top 50 American hospitals. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152(8):521-5. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-8-201004200-00009. View

2.
Bouchard P, Demyttenaere S, Court O, Franco E, Andalib A . Surgeon and hospital volume outcomes in bariatric surgery: a population-level study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020; 16(5):674-681. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2020.01.012. View

3.
Urbach D . Pledging to Eliminate Low-Volume Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(15):1388-90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1508472. View

4.
Finks J, Osborne N, Birkmeyer J . Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(22):2128-37. PMC: 3150488. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1010705. View

5.
Daskivich T, Houman J, Fuller G, Black J, Kim H, Spiegel B . Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 25(4):401-407. PMC: 7646854. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx083. View