Current Quality Level of Referral Letters and Feedback Reports in the First Health Cluster in Riyadh Health Cluster Primary Healthcare Centers

Mohammed Al-Yousef, Ahmed Al-Rajhi, Yazeed Al-Askar, Naif Al-Omari
{"title":"Current Quality Level of Referral Letters and Feedback Reports in the First Health Cluster in Riyadh Health Cluster Primary Healthcare Centers","authors":"Mohammed Al-Yousef, Ahmed Al-Rajhi, Yazeed Al-Askar, Naif Al-Omari","doi":"10.36348/sjmps.2024.v10i07.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Effective communication between primary healthcare centers (PHCCs) and referral hospitals is critical for ensuring the continuity and quality of patient care. Referral letters and feedback reports are essential for this communication, yet their quality is often inconsistent, potentially impacting patient outcomes. Study Aim: To assess the standard of feedback reports from referral hospitals and the quality of referral letters from PHCCs within the first health cluster in Riyadh. Methodology: This cross-sectional study randomly selected 360 referral letters and feedback reports from nine PHCCs in the first health cluster in Riyadh. Systematic sampling was employed to select approximately 55 documents from each center. Each document was evaluated based on 16 key components as per the Quality Assurance Manual of the Ministry of Health, using an author-developed scoring system. Results: The study included 360 referral letters and feedback reports, with an average quality score of 13.2 ± 1.5 out of 16. A majority of the documents (253, 70.3%) scored 13 or higher. Key components such as general information and patient file numbers were present in all documents (100%). Vital signs were documented in 351 cases (97.5%), and the reason for referral in 327 cases (90.8%). However, investigation results and current treatment details were included in only 142 (39.4%) and 150 (41.7%) of the documents, respectively. Clear handwriting was observed in 262 reports (72.8%), while 98 (27.2%) had legibility issues. Conclusion: The overall quality of referral letters and feedback reports in the first health cluster in Riyadh is relatively high. However, significant gaps were identified in the documentation of investigation results, current treatment details, and clinical examination findings. Addressing these gaps through targeted training, standardized documentation practices, and the adoption of electronic health records can enhance the quality of patient referrals and improve care continuity and outcomes.","PeriodicalId":508857,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":" 60","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36348/sjmps.2024.v10i07.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effective communication between primary healthcare centers (PHCCs) and referral hospitals is critical for ensuring the continuity and quality of patient care. Referral letters and feedback reports are essential for this communication, yet their quality is often inconsistent, potentially impacting patient outcomes. Study Aim: To assess the standard of feedback reports from referral hospitals and the quality of referral letters from PHCCs within the first health cluster in Riyadh. Methodology: This cross-sectional study randomly selected 360 referral letters and feedback reports from nine PHCCs in the first health cluster in Riyadh. Systematic sampling was employed to select approximately 55 documents from each center. Each document was evaluated based on 16 key components as per the Quality Assurance Manual of the Ministry of Health, using an author-developed scoring system. Results: The study included 360 referral letters and feedback reports, with an average quality score of 13.2 ± 1.5 out of 16. A majority of the documents (253, 70.3%) scored 13 or higher. Key components such as general information and patient file numbers were present in all documents (100%). Vital signs were documented in 351 cases (97.5%), and the reason for referral in 327 cases (90.8%). However, investigation results and current treatment details were included in only 142 (39.4%) and 150 (41.7%) of the documents, respectively. Clear handwriting was observed in 262 reports (72.8%), while 98 (27.2%) had legibility issues. Conclusion: The overall quality of referral letters and feedback reports in the first health cluster in Riyadh is relatively high. However, significant gaps were identified in the documentation of investigation results, current treatment details, and clinical examination findings. Addressing these gaps through targeted training, standardized documentation practices, and the adoption of electronic health records can enhance the quality of patient referrals and improve care continuity and outcomes.
利雅得第一医疗群基层医疗保健中心转诊信和反馈报告的当前质量水平
背景:初级保健中心(PHCC)与转诊医院之间的有效沟通对于确保患者护理的连续性和质量至关重要。转诊信和反馈报告对这种沟通至关重要,但它们的质量往往不一致,可能会影响患者的治疗效果。研究目的:评估转诊医院反馈报告的标准以及利雅得第一医疗集群内初级保健中心转诊信的质量。研究方法:这项横断面研究从利雅得第一医疗集群的九家初级保健中心随机抽取了 360 份转诊信和反馈报告。采用系统抽样的方法从每个中心抽取了约 55 份文件。根据卫生部《质量保证手册》的 16 个关键要素,采用作者开发的评分系统对每份文件进行评估。研究结果本研究包括 360 份转诊信和反馈报告,平均质量分数为 13.2 ± 1.5(满分 16 分)。大多数文件(253 份,70.3%)的得分都在 13 分或以上。所有文件(100%)都包含一般信息和患者档案编号等关键内容。351 个病例(97.5%)记录了生命体征,327 个病例(90.8%)记录了转诊原因。然而,分别只有 142 份(39.4%)和 150 份(41.7%)文件中包含了调查结果和当前治疗细节。262份(72.8%)报告的字迹清晰,98份(27.2%)报告的字迹模糊。结论利雅得第一个医疗群组的转诊信和反馈报告的总体质量相对较高。然而,在记录调查结果、当前治疗细节和临床检查结果方面发现了明显差距。通过有针对性的培训、标准化的记录方法和采用电子健康记录来弥补这些差距,可以提高患者转诊的质量,改善护理的连续性和效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信