Their study involved 76 new patients who attended two psychiatry clinics from January to July 2002 and eight psychiatrists who worked in these clinics during this time.
After the assessment, patients were sent a copy of the psychiatrist’s letter to the general practitioner and asked to complete a short questionnaire on their evaluation of the letter. Psychiatrists were asked whether anything of importance had been omitted from the letter, if so, why and how the omitted information would be communicated to general practitioners.
Fifty six of the 76 letters (74%) were sent to the patient in an unaltered form. In three cases the psychiatrists thought it inappropriate for the patient to receive a copy of the letter, citing concerns over patients’ distress. In 17 cases, clinicians made omissions, mainly of parts of the history.
Reasons cited for omission were fear of distressing the patient (14 instances), concern about people other than the patient having access to information (four instances), and protection of information supplied by third parties (two instances). General practitioners were informed of the omitted information, either by letter or in person. Most patients (33 out of 40) wished to continue receiving copies of correspondence.
Although patients appreciate receiving copies of letters, some training and reassurance about this practice may be needed for doctors before implementation, conclude the authors.