Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Copying referral letters

Mark Thornber
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59 (568): 869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp09X472926
Mark Thornber
Merryorchard, Rumbling Bridge, Kinross KY13 0PX. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: markymark@ukgateway.net
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Correction - December 01, 2009

As a retired GP and a current user of NHS services as a patient with multiple sclerosis, I would like to highlight an example of what, in my opinion, appears to be continued bad practice in many, if not most, areas of the medical profession.

When I asked for a copy of a letter from my consultant it was peppered with inaccuracies. Some of these were fundamental, which I was able to rectify. But my main concern is: why is copying letters to patients not routine practice (taking into account issues of consent, confidentiality, and unexpected content)? From the literature and discussions with former colleagues, there appear to be four main reasons for not doing so.

One is that patients would not understand what is written about them because of the use of medical terminology. Yet in my experience as a doctor and a patient, the vast majority of what passes as medical terminology is just jargon. On the occasions when medical terms have to be used, a plain English definition can be included either in the letter or in a separate glossary. Also, content not covered in the consultation should be clearly marked as such. Writing in plain English should be the norm — I thoroughly recommend a guide published by the Plain English Campaign.1

A second argument is that not all patients want copies of letters.2 However, studies have shown that patients appreciate and find written communication helpful.3 I also strongly suspect that many more patients would wish to have copies of letters if they could actually understand them, particularly if they knew the letters might not address their agenda.

Third, there is an argument that copying letters to patients merely adds to bureaucracy and workloads. However, the extra work and expense in a hospital setting have been shown to be minimal.4 I cannot deny, that for GPs whose patients have easy access initially the workload will increase. But I argue that once patients and doctors have got used to this method of communication, this will improve. Unfortunately, I could find no studies looking at this issue in a general practice setting.

Lastly, there is a fear that more written communication would lead to an increase in complaints. The experience of former colleagues is that this is a true and valid reason. However, I argue that correct, clear, well-written letters, highlighting the patient's agenda and associated worries would reduce complaints to a minimum. Again, I could find no studies looking at this issue.

In my opinion, fear of litigation is not a valid reason. And if only to avoid the discomfort and inconvenience of having their poor letters pointed out by their patients, health professionals would write clearer and better correspondence, and so provide a better service.

Writing letters which patients understand and sending them copies would, in my opinion, also:

  • help patients to be knowledgeable about their own health and, therefore, make the doctor's job easier;

  • empower not only patients, but also doctors;

  • remind them of what happened and what was decided in the consultation;

  • give them a feeling of ownership and involvement in their care;

  • help embed trust between patients and those caring for their health;

  • enhance patients' existing rights to access their medical records;

  • enable the patient to spot mistakes, such as medicine dosage errors; and

  • perhaps be seen as another tool to add to doctors' skills of good communication.

In April 2003, the Department of Health set out good practice guidelines on ‘Copying letters to Patients’.5 I commend these sensible and practical guidelines. Unfortunately, it appears they are not being widely followed. Why not?

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2009.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. The Plain English Campaign
    (2001) http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/medicalguide.pdf (accessed 6 Oct 2009).
  2. ↵
    1. Morrow G,
    2. Robson A,
    3. Harrington B,
    4. Haining S
    (2005) A qualitative study to investigate why patients accept or decline a copy of their referral letter from their GP. Br J Gen Pract 55(517):626–629.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Rao M,
    2. Fogarty P
    (2007) What did the doctor say? J Obstet Gynaecol 27(5):479–480.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Boaden R,
    2. Harris C
    (2005) Copying letters to patients — will it happen? Fam Pract 22(2):141–143.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2003) Copying letters to patients: good practice guidelines (Department of Health), http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4007561 (accessed 6 Oct 2009).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 59 (568)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 59, Issue 568
November 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Copying referral letters
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Copying referral letters
Mark Thornber
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59 (568): 869. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp09X472926

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Copying referral letters
Mark Thornber
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59 (568): 869. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp09X472926
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • GPs’ understanding of the wider workforce in primary care
  • 2020 vision? A retrospective study of time-bound curative claims in British and Irish newspapers
  • Verschlimmbesserung
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242