Open Access

Erratum to: Typologies in GPs’ referral practice

  • Olav Thorsen1, 2Email author,
  • Miriam Hartveit1, 6,
  • Jan Olav Johannessen4, 5,
  • Lars Fosse3,
  • Geir Egil Eide1, 7,
  • Jörn Schulz2, 8 and
  • Anders Bærheim1
BMC Family PracticeBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201718:11

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0572-2

Received: 6 December 2016

Accepted: 6 December 2016

Published: 31 January 2017

The original article was published in BMC Family Practice 2016 17:76

Erratum

The original article contained a major omission whereby Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 were mistakenly left out from the article body; this error was carried forward by the production team handling this article, and thus was not the fault of the authors.

As such, the original article has now been updated to include these tables.
Table 1

Norwegian general practitioners’ scores on statements about their referral process (A1-10) and data collected when actually referring to hospital (B1-6) during 1 month in 2014 (n = 57)

Variables

Mean

SD

Median

Min

Max

Statements on VAS 10 cm: 0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)

A1. “I spend a lot of time and effort on referrals”

5.3

2.0

5.2

0.5

9.8

A2. “I often feel that I don’t know enough about what is expected to make a good referral”

3.2

2.1

2.5

0.0

10.0

A3. “I am often afraid to have the referral rejected from hospital”

1.4

1.5

1.0

0.0

8.0

A4. “I am often afraid that the referral gives an impression of me not knowing enough about the actual medical problem”

2.9

2.2

2.0

0.0

9.5

A5. “It is easy to get in contact with a hospital specialist for advice”

4.9

2.3

5.0

1.0

9.0

A6. “Some referrals could have been avoided if I had got in contact with a hospital consultant when referring”

5.8

3.0

6.5

0.0

10.0

A7. “I usually complete the referral during the consultation”

4.6

3.3

5.0

0.0

10.0

A8. “The patient’s participation and opinion is important to me when I refer”

6.2

1.9

6.3

2.0

9.5

A9. “The patient should see the referral or have a copy before it is sent”

5.0

2.8

5.0

0.3

10.0

A10 “Giving the patient a copy of the referral will improve the quality”

4.4

2.8

5.0

0.5

10.0

B1. Difficult referral to make

(Likert scale 1–10)

2.6

1.0

2.7

1.0

5.6

B2. Pressure from patient to be referred

(Likert scale 1–10)

2.0

0.8

1.0

1.0

4.7

B3. Suggesting a priority for the patient to be admitted to hospital (%)

39.9

39.3

26.0

0.0

100.0

B4. Suggesting a wait for the patient to be admitted to hospital (%)

28.2

33.6

17.6

0.0

100.0

B5. Telephone contact with hospital specialist when referring (%)

9.1

16.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

B6. The time used for making the referral (minutes)

8.2

3.5

7.5

2.0

17.1

Abbreviations: GP: General practitioner; SD: standard deviation; VAS: visual analogue scale; Min: minimum, Max: maximum

Table 2

Eigenvalues and cumulative variance of the first ten components in a principal component analysis of 16 variables of the referral process from 57 general practitioners in Norway during spring 2014

Initial eigenvalues

Component

Total

% of variance

Cumulative %

1

2.3

14.4

14.4

2

1.9

12.0

26.5

3

1.7

10.9

37.3

4

1.6

10.0

47.3

5

1.4

8.5

55.8

6

1.3

8.3

64.1

7

1.1

7.0

71.1

8

1.0a

6.0

77.1

9

0.9

5.3

82.4

10

0.8

5.1

87.5

a)0.961

Table 3

Rotated pattern matrix after principal component analysisa) of 16 variables of the referral process from 57 general practitioners in Norway during spring 2014

Components

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A3: Afraid of rejection of referral

.872

.052

-.056

.031

-.051

.124

.038

-.040

A4: Not being good enough

.864

-.131

-.114

-.066

-.055

.021

-.176

.020

A2: Unknown expectations

.661

-.050

.246

.015

.060

-.130

.383

-.044

B4: Suggested waiting

-.029

.826

.252

.150

-.264

-.066

-.074

-.071

B3: Priority in referral

-.159

.760

-.152

.028

.370

.157

.056

.030

A1: Using much time to refer

.043

-.148

-.910

.110

.108

.021

-.039

-.123

A7: Referral in consultation

-.013

-.138

.690

.062

.407

.111

-.068

-.187

B5: Conferred with consultant

.026

-.127

.103

-.950

.056

.097

-.078

.147

A8: Patient opinion important

-.068

.002

.085

-.040

.841

-.037

-.108

-.196

A5: Contact with consultant

-.023

.021

-.139

.080

.431

.041

.431

.373

B6: Time used to refer

.043

.027

-.025

-.346

.027

.848

.124

-.095

B1: Difficult referral

.152

.091

.083

.351

.006

.713

-.287

.279

A6: Referral avoided if contact

.308

.373

-.100

-.048

.333

-.426

-.240

.145

A10: Copy gives better quality

-.020

.020

-.009

-.027

.118

-.017

-.873

.038

A9: Referral copy to patient

.033

-.060

.036

.247

.213

-.022

-.007

-.795

B2: Patient pressure

-.004

-.343

.198

.356

.084

.004

-.095

.601

a)Using an oblique (oblimin) rotation with Kaiser normalisation. Loadings larger than 0.4 are highlighted

Table 4

Results from multivariate multiple linear regression analysis of eight principal components on referrals from 57 general practitioners (GPs) in Norway in 2014

Dependent variables: Typological components

Independent variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Multivariate

 

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

b (p-value)

p-value

GP age

0.01 (0.469)

0.01 (0.780)

0.01 (0.727)

0.01 (0.904)

0.01 (0.594)

0.01 (0.580)

0.02 (0.235)

−0.01 (0.791)

.965

Gender: male

−0.23 (0.412)

−0.63 (0.038)

0.54 (0.068)

−0.22 (0.463)

0.07 (0.815)

0.57 (0.069)

0.34 (0.254)

0.69 (0.012)

.019

Specialty: no

1.32 (0.015)

−0.13 (0.822)

0.79 (0.148)

0.16 (0.770)

0.08 (0.892)

0.84 (0.146)

0.83 (0.145)

1.52 (0.003)

.002

Location: urban

−0.39 (0.214)

−0.12 (0.714)

−0.16 (0.624)

0.48 (0.157)

−0.51 (0.138)

−0.45 (0.189)

−0.06 (0.860)

−0.12 (0.684)

.269

N referrals

−0.01 (0.893)

0.02 (0.346)

0.04 (0.090)

0.05 (0.049)

0.01 (0.575)

0.02 (0.519)

−0.03 (0.258)

0.05 (0.020)

.056

b: Estimated regression coefficients; p-values from t-test

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen
(2)
Department of Research, Stavanger University Hospital
(3)
Department of Orthopaedics, Stavanger University Hospital
(4)
Centre for Clinical Psychosis Research, Division of Psychiatry, Stavanger University Hospital
(5)
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger
(6)
Section for Research and Innovation
(7)
Centre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital
(8)
Section of Biostatistics, Stavanger University Hospital

Reference

  1. Thorsen O, et al. Typologies in GPs’ referral practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0495-y.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement