CommunicationPriorityNCT01976221
Priority Setting and Waiting Time Decision in the Referral Process, How and by Whom?
An observational study of Communication, run by University of Bergen at 1 site in Norway.
Trial summary
The referral letter is used for different purposes: a request for a special diagnostic assessment or medical treatment that the GP cannot perform for the patient, an invitation to have a second opinion about a clinical problem or a wish for mutual responsibility for the medical handling. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Communication
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNorway
- Study dates
- Jan 2016to 10 Oct 2018
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 25 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: General practitioners referring to Stavanger University Hospital
Who may be able to join
- All the 300 GPs referring to Stavanger University Hospital who participate in one of the 58 CPD groups in South Rogaland County and who agree to participate in the study are included.
Who cannot join
- GPs not willing to participate
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Priority Setting and Waiting Time Decision in the Referral Process, How and by Whom? A Prospective Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of an Education Program in Priority Setting and Waiting Time Decision in Referrals
The referral letter is used for different purposes: a request for a special diagnostic assessment or medical treatment that the GP cannot perform for the patient, an invitation to have a second opinion about a clinical problem or a wish for mutual responsibility for the medical handling. The individual referral rate between GPs varies greatly, and is an important determinant of secondary care utilization. We wanted to study the various elements and factors having an impact on the referral process, from the moment the GP decides to refer the patient until the hospital consultant assess the referral and prioritise the patient for further investigation or treatment. How and why are we, the GPs who refer, so different? We wanted to
- identify and describe general practitioners' reflections on and attitudes to the referral process and cooperation with hospital specialists
- identify and describe hospital consultants' reflections on and attitudes to the referral process and cooperation with general practitioners
- identify typologies characterising GPs in the referral practice
Read the detailed description
Design and Methods:
We did two qualitative and one quantitative study. The first was a focus group study with GPs in CPD groups, the second an individual study with hospital consultants, both analyses by using systematic text condensation. The third was a quantitative registration of impressions, facts and feelings in the referral process using a principal component analysis to find typologies for GPs who refer to hospital.
Participants:
GPs referring to Stavanger University Hospital. Hospital consultants at Stavanger University Hospital.
Intervention: No intervention was performed.
Time schedule:
Data Collection finished May 2014.
- Conditions
- Communication
- Keywords
- Comprehensive referrals, Appropriate referring, Priority setting, Waiting time in hospital
- Medical subject headings
- Communication
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Prioritization | Team-based multifaceted interactive training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Use of priority setting and waiting time indication in referrals
The use of priority setting and waiting time in referrals will be recorded before and after an intervention with group training for general practitioners
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (1)
Referral rates
The referral rates may be reduced by higher awareness of non-prioritized medical conditions. The use of priority setting and waiting time according to the national prioritization guidelines can give a higher correlation between GPs and hospital consultants about priority setting and waiting time.
Measured: One year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Nov 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2016
- Primary completionJan 2016
- Study completion10 Oct 2018 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Study withdrawn
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for CommunicationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Ecologic or community
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Bergen
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Olav Thorsen, University of Bergen
- Investigators
- Anders Baerheim, Professor, Study chair, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Norway
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01976221
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- REK2013/1762
- Acronym
- Priority
- Status last verified
- Sep 2021
- First submitted
- 17 Oct 2013
- Last updated
- 1 Oct 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Thorsen O, Hartveit M, Baerheim A. General practitioners' reflections on referring: an asymmetric or non-dialogical process? Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012 Dec;30(4):241-6. doi: 10.3109/02813432.2012.711190. Epub 2012 Oct 10.
PubMed 23050793
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Oct 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Priority Setting and Waiting Time Decision in the Referral Process, How and by Whom? A Prospective Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of an Education Program in Priority Setting and Waiting Time Decision in Referrals
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01976221
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Priority / REK2013/1762
- Conditions
- Communication
- Keywords
- Comprehensive referrals, Appropriate referring, Priority setting, Waiting time in hospital
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Study withdrawn
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of BergenUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2016
- Primary completion
- Jan 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Oct 2018 (estimated)
- First posted
- 5 Nov 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The referral letter is used for different purposes: a request for a special diagnostic assessment or medical treatment that the GP cannot perform for the patient, an invitation to have a second opinion about a clinical problem or a wish for mutual responsibility for the medical handling. The individual referral rate between GPs varies greatly, and is an important determinant of secondary care utilization. We wanted to study the various elements and factors having an impact on the referral process, from the moment the GP decides to refer the patient until the hospital consultant assess the referral and prioritise the patient for further investigation or treatment. How and why are we, the GPs who refer, so different? We wanted to
- identify and describe general practitioners' reflections on and attitudes to the referral process and cooperation with hospital specialists
- identify and describe hospital consultants' reflections on and attitudes to the referral process and cooperation with general practitioners
- identify typologies characterising GPs in the referral practice
Detailed description
Design and Methods:
We did two qualitative and one quantitative study. The first was a focus group study with GPs in CPD groups, the second an individual study with hospital consultants, both analyses by using systematic text condensation. The third was a quantitative registration of impressions, facts and feelings in the referral process using a principal component analysis to find typologies for GPs who refer to hospital.
Participants:
GPs referring to Stavanger University Hospital. Hospital consultants at Stavanger University Hospital.
Intervention: No intervention was performed.
Time schedule:
Data Collection finished May 2014.
Study design
- Observational model
- Ecologic or community
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Prioritization | – | –Team-based multifaceted interactive training |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- General practitioners referring to Stavanger University Hospital
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All the 300 GPs referring to Stavanger University Hospital who participate in one of the 58 CPD groups in South Rogaland County and who agree to participate in the study are included.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- GPs not willing to participate
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Use of priority setting and waiting time indication in referrals
Time frame: 1 year
The use of priority setting and waiting time in referrals will be recorded before and after an intervention with group training for general practitioners
1 secondary outcome
Referral rates
Time frame: One year
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Oct 2021.
- Background: PubMed 23050793Thorsen O, Hartveit M, Baerheim A. General practitioners' reflections on referring: an asymmetric or non-dialogical process? Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012 Dec;30(4):241-6. doi: 10.3109/02813432.2012.711190. Epub 2012 Oct 10.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Communication
Not yet recruiting
Culturally-Tailored AI Chatbot Simulation for Therapeutic Communication and Empathy in Psychiatric Nursing Students
Therapeutic Communication
Recruiting
Culturally Targeted Health Communication and Receptivity to the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Among Parents in Flint, MI
HPV Vaccination
Recruiting
Cost Communication and Financial Navigation in Cancer Patients (COSTCOM)
Malignant Solid Neoplasm
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
PREVENT HPV -Related Cancers Trial
HPV Vaccination, Uptake Vaccination
RecruitingObservational study
Collection of Clinical Data and Specimens for Research in Hearing, Balance, Taste, Smell, Voice, Speech, and Language Disorders.
Hearing Loss, Deafness
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Anders Baerheim, Professor study chair
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Norway
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Communication, run by University of Bergen at 1 site in Norway.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Oct 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Norway. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Use of priority setting and waiting time indication in referrals (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01976221, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Oct 2021.