WRITING TO REFERRING DOCTORS AFTER A NEW PATIENT CONSULTATION - WHAT IS WANTED AND WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN LETTERS FROM ONE MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST

Background: There are no Australasian data on the preferred informatio n content of letters from consultant physicians to referring doctors. Aims: To survey referring general practitioners (GPs) and specialists concerning their preferences for letters from a consultant physician a fter a new patient consultation to include different categories of inf ormation. To investigate the information content of letters written by one medical oncologist to referring doctors after a new patient consu ltation and contrast with that of individualised letters written to pa tients. Methods: Fifty-five referring GPs and 53 specialists were sent a questionnaire seeking their views on the information content of let ters from consultant physicians. Ninety-four letters after a new patie nt consultation were selected at random and analysed for their informa tion content, and compared with 182 individualised letters sent to pat ients. Results: Referring doctors wanted letters to contain details of diagnosis, clinical findings, test results and recommended future tes ts, treatment options, side effects and prognosis. Letters to referrin g doctors contained 19 items of information (range 8-33), while letter s to patients contained a mean of 5.6 'salient' points (range 5-7). Bo th letters almost always stated the diagnosis, the presenting history and recommended treatment. Letters to patients more commonly presented information about prognosis, further tests, and explanation of sympto ms than letters to doctors. In contrast, letters to referring doctors contained more information concerning the past medical, family, and dr ug history, clinical findings and test results. Conclusions: Letters s ent by a consultant oncologist are not well tailored to the informatio n needs of the referring clinician. Summary letters sent to patients m ay be modified to include information required by referring doctors.