Causes and consequences of rejected or returned referrals from general practice

In various countries, an increasing proportion of general practitioner (GP) referrals is returned by hospitals. We aimed to uncover the causes and consequences of referral returns from the perspective of GP liaisons.

Individual interviews with 20 GP liaison officers from various departments in Southern Denmark, serving 1.2 million citizens, were analysed using systematic text condensation.

The collaboration between general practice and hospital departments was generally viewed as both effective and constructive. Well-argued returns include relevant advice on how to manage the patient and enhance the capabilities of general practice. In contrast, poorly motivated returns harm collaboration and lead to mistrust between GPs, hospitals and patients. Patients with an unclear diagnosis, multimorbidity or social problems do not fit into standard patient pathways, and their referrals are returned more frequently. They may face prolonged diagnostic processes and receive a lower quality of treatment, contributing to health inequalities and the risk of delayed diagnosis or treatment. Furthermore, the return of referrals transfers tasks to general practice.

Facilitating dialogue-based collaboration between primary and secondary care may improve patient care. However, referral returns may pose risks, particularly for frail or complex patients, and could potentially complicate the collaboration between GPs and hospitals. The underlying reasons and consequences of referral returns are diverse.

Funded by the Quality Improvement Committee Southern Denmark. RIO/SDU 12.228.

Not relevant.