General practitioner referral audit: are the new Clinical Prioritisation Criteria required?
Original Article

General practitioner referral audit: are the new Clinical Prioritisation Criteria required?

Ryan Wei Sen Goh, Lauren Elizabeth Styan, Craig Anthony Bond, Johannes Christiaan Oosthuizen

Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Ipswich Hospital, Queensland, Australia

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: CA Bond, JC Oosthuizen; (II) Administrative support: CA Bond; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: CA Bond; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: RW Goh, LE Styan; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: RW Goh, LE Styan, JC Oosthuizen; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Ryan Wei Sen Goh. Medical Intern in Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. Ipswich Hospital, Queensland, Australia. Email:

Background: Referral letters are frequently the only source of communication between primary health care providers and specialists. To ensure the safe handover of patient care, these referral letters should be written to an appropriate standard to provide sufficient detail about the patient’s overall clinical picture. Our aim is to ascertain the quality of information contained in referrals received by the Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department at Ipswich Hospital (Queensland, Australia), and to consider whether a change of the referral pathway is warranted.

Methods: One hundred and twenty-two referrals were randomly selected in July 2018, and scored against the Ipswich Hospital referral requirements (maximum score of 32). Scores were separated into four categories: patient demographics, referring practitioner details, relevant clinical information, and condition-specific information.

Results: The mean overall score was 21.4 (67%). Paediatric and adult referrals scored similarly at 21.7 (68%) and 21.2 (66%) respectively. When considering the four subsections, the referring practitioner’s details scored the highest (91.7%), whereas the relevant clinical information scored the lowest (50.9%).

Conclusions: To ensure the safety of the patient and a well-functioning public health service, referral letters need to be written to an adequate standard to enable accurate categorization of outpatient appointments. The results of this study demonstrate poor compliance with current set referral guidelines. This in turn has implications with regards to the accurate triaging of referrals received. This has initiated the introduction of the Clinical Prioritisation Criteria (CPC) guidelines, which are welcomed. Time will tell whether the introduction of these will ultimately enhance the quality of referrals received.

Keywords: Patient safety; general practice; referral letters; otolaryngology; guidelines; public health; outpatient; appointment

Received: 14 May 2019; Accepted: 13 December 2019; Published online: 31 December 2019.

doi: 10.21037/ajo.2019.12.04


The Otolaryngology, Head and Neck (ENT) Surgery Department is frequently one of the busier outpatient departments in any hospital, receiving between 9% and 20% of all referrals from primary care providers (1). In Australia there is one ENT surgeon per 47,800 inhabitants (529 ENT surgeons and 25,287,400 Australian residents) (2,3). This is in stark contrast to some European countries where there is one surgeon for every 10,000–14,000 inhabitants (Greece and Austria respectively) (4,5). It is therefore not surprising that the waiting time for an ENT outpatient appointment can be up to 12 months for non-urgent cases. Long waiting lists require additional administrative support and more concerning is the potential increased morbidity and mortality of cancer presentations associated with prolonged waiting times for an outpatient appointment (6-9).

General practitioner referral letters are invariably the only source of information available when outpatient referrals are triaged. Referrals with limited information can lead to the incorrect categorization of referrals which in turn can result in clinically inappropriate delays in the investigation and management of patients with serious pathology. Conversely non-urgent cases can occupy appointment slots that may have been of more benefit to a patient requiring an urgent review. Categorisation of referral letters is therefore an important phase of treatment, as it provides both the patient and the treating clinicians the reassurance of the condition being managed in a timely manner. In Queensland, Australia, Category 1 referrals requires the patient to be seen within 30 days of receiving the referral; Category 2 within 90 days; and Category 3 within 365 days. Currently, the ENT Department at the Ipswich Hospital (Queensland, Australia) is compliant with the requirements, and have been reviewing patients in a timely manner in accordance to their triage categories.

Effective communication between the primary care provider and the ENT Surgeon is therefore vitally important to ensure that the unfavourable effects of extensive waiting lists are negated. To improve the overall quality of general practitioner (GP) referral letters, several authors in the past have recommended the use of pro forma letters to ensure that all relevant information is included in the referral (7,10-12).

In Queensland, Australia, all hospital health districts provide guidelines, outlining the requirements for adequate referral letters (refer to Boxes 1,2). Although there are no standardized referral letters currently available in Australia, all GPs have access to pro forma letters that helps to automatically complete the details listed in Box 1, saving time for clinicians.

Table 1

Referral breakdown for age (paediatric vs. adult)

No. referrals Mean score Percentage (%)
Total 122 21.4 66.8
Paediatrics 47 21.7 67.8
Adults 75 21.2 66.2

Table 2

Referral letter scores, with breakdown for each referral subsection

Mean score Percentage (%)
Total score (max. 32) 21.4 66.8
   Patient demographics (max. 8) 5.7 71.2
   GP details (max. 6) 5.5 91.7
   Clinical history (max. 11) 5.6 50.9
   Condition-specific information (max. 7) 4.2 60

GP, general practitioner.

The aim of this study was to ascertain the quality of referrals received by the Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department at the Ipswich Hospital (Queensland, Australia), and to consider whether the introduction of Clinical Prioritization Criteria (CPC) are truly warranted.


Each month, the Ipswich Hospital Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department receives approximately 300 referrals from general practitioners and other medical specialists. Of the 300 referrals received in July 2018, 122 referrals were randomly selected and compared against the Ipswich Hospital referral guidelines (as listed in Boxes 1 and 2).

Referrals included in the study were limited to those received from general practitioners only. All specialist and in-hospital referrals were excluded.

The Ipswich Hospital referral requirements were divided into four separate sections: patient demographics (maximum 8 points), referring practitioner details (maximum 6 points), relevant clinical information (maximum 11 points), and condition-specific information (maximum 7 points). Each referral letter was critically assessed against their corresponding condition-specific requirements. A point was only awarded if sufficient information surrounding the criterion was provided. The maximum possible score was 32 points. The resulting score was deemed a reflection of the comprehensiveness and quality of the referral.


The referrals were received in a variety of formats: hand written, typed, and completed GP pro forma letters. Of the 122 referrals analysed, 47 were for paediatric patients and 75 for adult patients (Table 1).

The overall amount of information included within the referral letters did not compare favorably to the published standard, resulting in a mean score of 21.4 out of 32 points (66.8%) (Table 1). Both paediatric and adult referrals were of similar standards, scoring 21.7 (67.8%) and 21.2 (66.2%) points respectively (Table 1).

When considering the four sections of the referral, the referrer’s details scored the highest, with a mean of 5.5 out of a maximum of 6 points (91.7%) (Table 2).

The clinical history and condition-specific sections had low scores of 50.9% and 60% respectively (Table 2). Physical examination findings were only recorded in 40% of referrals.

The referrals were further analysed according to their specific condition. The following conditions scored the highest number of points in the specific-conditions category: otitis media with effusion (88.6%), otitis externa (87.7%), and paediatric hearing loss (85.7%) (Table 3). The following conditions all scored lower than 50% in their corresponding specific-conditions category: adult obstructive sleep apnoea (14.3%), dysphonia (40%), vertigo (40%), paediatric allergic rhinitis (42.8%), adult tympanic membrane perforation (42.8%), and paediatric epistaxis (42.8%) (Table 3).

Table 3

Scoring breakdown for condition-specific information

No. referrals Mean score (max. 7) Percentage (%) Overall score (max. 32) Percentage (%)
Chronic ear disease 1 4 57.14 25 78.1
Dysphagia 3 2.6 38.1 21 65.6
Dysphonia 5 2.8 40 20.6 64.4
Oropharyngeal lesion 4 5.5 78.6 22.5 70.3
Rhinosinusitis 7 5.1 73.5 20.3 63.4
Sialolithiasis 1 5 71.4 27 84.4
Vertigo 5 2.8 40 19 59.4
Tinnitus 3 5.3 76.2 22.3 69.8
Allergic rhinitis (A) 12 3.9 55.9 20.2 63
Allergic rhinitis (P) 2 3 42.8 21 65.6
Tympanic membrane perforation (A) 1 3 42.8 17 53.1
Tympanic membrane perforation (P) 2 4.5 64.3 24.5 76.6
Epistaxis (A) 1 4 57.1 22 68.7
Epistaxis (P) 1 3 42.8 20 62.5
Obstructive sleep apnoea (A) 2 1 14.3 19 59.4
Obstructive sleep apnoea (P) 12 5.3 76.2 23.2 72.7
Hearing loss (A) 11 5.1 72.7 21.4 67
Hearing loss (P) 2 6 85.7 21.5 67.2
Head and neck mass 5 5 71.4 22 68.7
Tonsillitis (A) 9 4.2 60.3 21.3 66.7
Tonsillitis (P) 12 3.8 54.8 20.9 65.4
Otitis externa 7 6.1 87.7 23.3 72.8
Otitis media with effusion 5 6.2 88.6 20.2 63.1
Acute suppurative otitis media 9 3.8 55.5 21.2 66.3

A, adult; P, paediatric.

Reassuringly, when comparing the referrals with respect to their urgency, Category 1 referrals had a higher compliance rate than Category 2 and 3 (Table 4).

Table 4

Scoring breakdown according to appointment category

Number Overall score (max. 32) Percentage (%)
Category 1 18 22.5 70.4
Category 2 22 21.1 65.9
Category 3 82 21.2 66.3

Category 1: appointment within the next 30 days; Category 2: appointment within the next 90 days; Category 3: appointment within the next 365 days.


Comprehensive referral letters, containing adequate relevant information, have a significant impact on specialists’ ability to accurately triage referrals (1,13). Conversely, withholding essential information in referrals increases the risk of harm to high-risk patients by potentially delaying investigation and definitive management (1,14).

Overall, there was relative paucity of information within the referrals received from general practitioners, with the mean score of 21 out of 32 (66%) when compared against the list of Ipswich Hospital requirements. It is not surprising that the section that scored highest was the general practitioner’s details (92%), as most referrals are pro formas, automatically populating the details of the general practitioner and clinic (i.e., GP name, address, telephone and fax numbers, and medical provider number).

A concerning finding was that the two lower scoring sections were: clinical history (51%) and condition-specific information (60%), which typically hold the highest yield of information when grading a referral.

The poor quality of referral information in these two sections could be the result from a combination of the time constraints, and the complexity of the referral system to name but a few.

The Clinical Prioritisation Criteria (CPC) are a set of statewide guidelines for referring practitioners, published by the Queensland Government in August 2018. It details the specific information required to be included in each referral. This was established to ensure that referrals to public specialist outpatient services are assessed according to clinical urgency. These statewide guidelines can be found on each hospital’s website for referring clinicians to review when creating a referral. The aim of these guidelines is to improve the referral and communication process between referrers and specialist outpatient services. Along with this initiative, incoming referrals are now overseen by a triage nurse who can request more information if a referral does not meet the guideline standards.

The results of this study indicate that the referral pathways in place at the time of the study required significant improvement in order to safely and accurately triage outpatient appointments. Therefore, the newly introduced CPC guidelines are welcomed and hopefully will result in more accurate triaging of referrals. We intend to evaluate the true impact of the CPC initiative by repeating the audit process in the coming months when the guidelines are well established.

A limitation of this study is the small sample size of 122 referrals, as this only represents approximately half of the referrals the Otolaryngology Department receives on a monthly basis.


It is well recognized that an inadequate referral letter can in turn result in inappropriate triaging, extended waiting times and potentially increased morbidity and even mortality rates. This study demonstrates that the key areas of improvement are the inclusion of examination findings, clinical history and condition-specific information. The implementation of a strict minimum referral criteria (through the CPC guidelines) and enabling nurses to request additional information from referring practitioners, aims to improve the overall quality of referrals received. If this system is effective it will ultimately result in more accurate triaging, improved patient care and safer outpatient services.

Box 1 Required identifying information referral letters to the Ipswich Hospital.

Patient’s demographics details
   Full name (including aliases)
Date and country of birth
Residential and postal address including whether patient resides at an aged care facility
Telephone contact number(s)—home, mobile and alternative
Medicare number (where eligible)
Preferred language and interpreter requirements
Identifies as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
Referring practitioner details
   Full name
Full address
Contact details—telephone, fax, email
Provider number
Date of referral
Nominated general practitioner’s details (if known), if the nominated general practitioner is different from the referring practitioner

Box 2 Information required by the Ipswich Hospital to triage the referral (this list varies according to the disease).

Relevant clinical information about the condition
   Presenting symptoms (evolution and duration)
   Physical findings
Details of previous treatment (including systemic and topical medications prescribed) including the course and outcome of the treatment
All conservative options that have been pursued unsuccessfully prior to referral
Body mass index (BMI)
Details of any associated medical conditions which may affect the condition or its treatment (e.g., diabetes, BMI), noting these must be stable and controlled prior to referral
Any special care requirements where relevant (e.g., tracheostomy in place, oxygen required)
Current medications and dosages
Drug allergies
Alcohol, tobacco and other drugs use
A comprehensive capture of information in relation to MSH Referral Criteria
Reason for request
   To establish a diagnosis
For treatment or intervention
For advice and management
For specialist to take over management
Reassurance for GP/second opinion
For a specified test/investigation the GP can't order, or the patient can't afford or access
Reassurance for the patient/family
For other reason (e.g., rapidly accelerating disease progression)
Clinical judgment indicates a referral for specialist review is necessary


Funding: None.


Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See:


  1. Oosthuizen JC, McShane D, Kinsella J, et al. General practitioner ENT referral audit. Ir J Med Sci 2015;184:143-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Agency AHPR. Medical Board of Australia Registrant Data. AHPRA. 2019. Available online:
  3. ABS. Australian Demographic Statistics, March 2019. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2019. Available online: Accessed 3101.0.
  4. Mollenhauer H. ENT Specialists within EU member countries and other associated countries. In: European Union of Medical Specialists. 2012. Available online:
  5. Surgeons RACo. Surgical Workforce Projection to 2025 (for Australia). 2011. Available online: 1.
  6. Jiwa M, Meng X, O’Shea C, et al. Impact of referral letters on scheduling of hospital appointments: a randomised control trial. Br J Gen Pract 2014;64:e419-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Shaffie N, Cheng L. Improving the quality of oral surgery referrals. Br Dent J 2012;213:411-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Jiwa M, Arnet H, Bulsara M, et al. What is the importance of the referral letter in the patient journey? A pilot survey in Western Australia. Qual Prim Care 2009;17:31-6. [PubMed]
  9. Webb JB, Khanna A. Can we rely on a general practitioner's referral letter to a skin lesion clinic to prioritize appointments and does it make a difference to the patient's prognosis? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006;88:40-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Moloney J, Stassen LF. An audit of the quality of referral letters received by the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dublin Dental School and Hospital. J Ir Dent Assoc 2010;56:221-3. [PubMed]
  11. Navarro CM, Onofre MA, Sposto MR. Referral letters in oral medicine: an approach for the general dental practitioner. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;30:448-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Couper ID, Henbest R. The quality and relationship of referral and reply letters. The effect of introducing a pro forma letter. South African Medical Journal 1996;86:1540-2. [PubMed]
  13. Jiwa M, Dhaliwal S. Referral Writer: preliminary evidence for the value of comprehensive referral letters. Qual Prim Care 2012;20:39-45. [PubMed]
  14. Stainkey LA, Seidl IA, Johnson AJ, et al. The challenge of long waiting lists: how we implemented a GP referral system for non-urgent specialist' appointments at an Australian public hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:303. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/ajo.2019.12.04
Cite this article as: Sen Goh RW, Styan LE, Bond CA, Oosthuizen JC. General practitioner referral audit: are the new Clinical Prioritisation Criteria required? Aust J Otolaryngol 2019;2:29.

Download Citation