Interoperability · Evidence
The numbers, and what they support
We use a small number of figures repeatedly. This page states where each comes from and what it does not prove.
The figures
With attribution
| Figure | Claim | Attribution |
|---|---|---|
| 100 million+ | Specialist referrals requested annually | As reported in Appendix B, Organisation Associates |
| Up to 50% | Referrals never completed | Institute for Healthcare Improvement and National Patient Safety Foundation, as cited |
| Above 50% | Providers still sending referrals by traditional fax | As reported in Appendix B |
| 40% | Hand paper referrals to patients | As reported in Appendix B |
| 10% | Provide verbal instructions | As reported in Appendix B |
| 30% | Use EHR referral orders | As reported in Appendix B |
What these figures do not show
Three cautions
They are not Indian-specific
The referral literature they come from is largely from health systems elsewhere. The structural argument transfers; the exact proportions should not be assumed to.
Categories overlap
A single provider may fax some referrals, hand others to the patient, and enter some in an EHR. The percentages do not sum to a hundred and are not meant to.
They describe transmission, not outcome
A referral sent well can still fail at the receiving end. Transmission method is one variable among several.
Why we publish the caveats
One reason
A statistic used without its limits is a slogan
We would rather a partner quoted us accurately than impressively.
Read the underlying argument.
The referral problem in full.