Unreliable escalation of patient telephone referrals to GPs
First to latest report 16 Dec 2013 — 11 Mar 2024
Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
2
Stated actions linked to this concern
8
What this concern includes
Includes failures in the dedicated GP telephone-referral process to receive, identify, prioritise, interrupt or otherwise alert the GP to clinically important patient information or deterioration, including tracking and assurance that patient enquiries are escalated and acted upon.
What is not included
Excludes general GP appointment access, referral-route or consultation-capacity failures where telephone-referral escalation is not the deficient control.
Excludes failures to provide clinical assessment or treatment after the GP has been reliably alerted and has accepted responsibility.
Excludes generic communication, staffing, documentation or workload deficiencies unless they directly impair escalation of a patient telephone referral or enquiry to the GP.
Excludes non-GP referrals and communications with specialist or emergency services unless the assertion explicitly concerns the same GP telephone-referral escalation process.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice1
Daughter of the deceased1
Hama Medical Centre1
Ministry of Justice1
NHS England1
Office of the Chief Coroner1
Sunderland Coroner's Service1
Coronial office1
Executive non-departmental public body1
Healthcare site1
Ministerial department1
Multi-service care provider1
Type not available1
Reports and published responses 2 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
East London
Concerns raised1
Failure to demonstrate improvement in escalation of patient enquiries to GPs
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.8
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Provide staff training on using the auditable message book, direct clinician escalation and avoiding screen messaging for patient queries.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Stop using screen messaging for patient or clinical matters and use the tracked message book or direct clinician communication instead.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Provide Lead GP reception support for staff queries, message-book use and care navigation during busy periods.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Develop a reliable auditable communication system by using EMIS messaging, retaining tracked message-book processes and building an urgent-communication template.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Establish a comprehensive staff training programme, including provider engagement, identified learning needs and arrangements to release staff for training.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Deliver scenario-based triage training and schedule recurring biannual sessions, with additional training when needed.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Review and update communication, escalation and emergency policies through team engagement and a review process.
Church Elm Lane Medical Practice
Develop and use a Message Book protocol and telephone call supervision audit.
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised1
Inability of reception staff to interrupt GPs to alert and inform them of changes in a patient’s condition following telephone referrals
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.