Filters
Filter by ward, specialty referred to and referral urgency.
Ward / clinical area
Specialty referred to
Referral urgency
Episodes reviewed
7
Sample data
Overall compliance
88%
Target ≥ 90%
Referral within timeframe
57%
Criterion 4
Review within timeframe
29%
Specialty advice or review
Advice documented
100%
Outcome recorded clearly
Action owner documented
86%
Named owner for advice
Estimated bed days
14.5
Attributable to referral delay
Safety concerns
2
Episodes with a concern recorded
Compliance by ward
Overall compliance across all criteria, grouped by ward or clinical area.
Compliance by specialty referred to
Identifies specialties where referral, review or action reliability varies.
Delay reasons — Pareto analysis
Frequency of primary delay reason with cumulative percentage.
Delay stage
Where in the referral pathway the delay occurred.
Trend over time
Monthly overall compliance and recorded safety concerns.
Impact on care
Episodes where specialty advice was needed before a key care decision.
Criterion-level compliance
Compliance calculated from Yes and No responses only. 13 criterion/criteria below the local target of 90%.
1
Clinical question or reason for specialty referral was documented.
86%
2
Specialty referred to was documented clearly.
100%
3
Referral urgency or priority was documented.
86%
4
Referral was made within the locally expected timeframe after it became clinically indicated.
57%
5
Referral route used was appropriate to local policy and urgency.
100%
6
Referral information was complete enough for the specialty team to triage or respond.
86%
7
Referral was acknowledged, accepted or triaged where local system supports this.
86%
8
Specialty advice or review was completed within the locally expected timeframe.
29%
9
Senior specialty review was completed where required by local policy or clinical context.
100%
10
Advice or review outcome was documented clearly.
100%
11
Management recommendation was documented where advice was given.
100%
12
Investigation, procedure, transfer or treatment recommendation was documented where relevant.
100%
13
Action owner for specialty advice was documented.
86%
14
Specialty recommendation was actioned within local expected timeframe where required.
71%
15
Reason for delayed referral, delayed review or delayed action was documented where applicable.
83%
16
Interim clinical management plan was documented while awaiting specialty advice where relevant.
100%
17
Alternative specialty, pathway or escalation route was considered where appropriate.
100%
18
Outpatient, planned review or community option was considered where safe and appropriate.
100%
19
Impact on diagnosis was documented or inferable.
100%
20
Impact on treatment decision was documented or inferable.
100%
21
Impact on discharge readiness, expected discharge date or length of stay was documented or inferable.
71%
22
Criteria-to-reside or discharge readiness impact was reviewed where relevant.
100%
23
Referral delay was escalated according to local policy where escalation criteria were met.
83%
24
Specialty team was re-contacted or referral chased where delay persisted and review remained required.
100%
25
Outstanding referral or advice was handed over clearly where relevant.
86%
26
Discharge summary included outstanding specialty advice, follow-up or action where relevant.
100%
27
Patient was informed about delay, outcome or follow-up where appropriate.
100%
28
Documentation was clear enough for another clinician or coordinator to understand referral status, delay reason, owner and next action.
86%
29
Any specialty-referral-related patient safety concern was escalated or actioned where identified.
100%
Interpretation
Generated from current project data.
Overall compliance across all criteria was 88% (156/177 applicable responses). Referral made within the locally expected timeframe was 57%, specialty review or advice within the locally expected timeframe was 29%, advice documented clearly was 100%, and action owner documented was 86%. 2 episode(s) recorded a specialty-referral-related safety concern. The most frequently recorded primary delay reason was “urgency / priority unclear”.
Overall performance is below the local target of 90%. The largest gaps are: criterion 1 (86%), criterion 3 (86%), criterion 4 (57%), criterion 6 (86%), criterion 7 (86%). Recorded length of stay impact equates to an estimated 14.5 bed day(s) across the sample. Findings should be interpreted alongside sample size, case mix and local referral capacity.
Potential improvement opportunities
Suggested local implementation actions — editable in the Improvement tab.
- •Make referral urgency and clinical question mandatory fields on the electronic referral form.
- •Agree and publish local specialty response timeframes by urgency category.
- •Record a named action owner for every piece of specialty advice.
- •Review outstanding specialty referrals at daily board rounds and at weekend handover.
- •Agree a re-contact/chase process where specialty review remains outstanding beyond the local timeframe.
- •Include outstanding specialty advice and follow-up in discharge documentation.