Lucy Pocock, Tanuka Palit, Adam McDermott, Sam Creavin, Emma Gilbert, Samuel Wd Merriel, Steven Moore, Sarah Purdy, Stephen Barclay, Lucy E Selman
{"title":"是什么帮助或阻碍了二级医疗机构和初级医疗机构之间就不良预后进行沟通?系统综述与叙述性综述。","authors":"Lucy Pocock, Tanuka Palit, Adam McDermott, Sam Creavin, Emma Gilbert, Samuel Wd Merriel, Steven Moore, Sarah Purdy, Stephen Barclay, Lucy E Selman","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>This was an international systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies published in English.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Four electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 17 May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching of key journals. One-quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Searches identified 23 853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Lucy Pocock, Tanuka Palit, Adam McDermott, Sam Creavin, Emma Gilbert, Samuel Wd Merriel, Steven Moore, Sarah Purdy, Stephen Barclay, Lucy E Selman\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>This was an international systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies published in English.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Four electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 17 May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching of key journals. One-quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Searches identified 23 853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0341","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.
Background: The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process.
Aim: To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care.
Design and setting: This was an international systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies published in English.
Method: Four electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 17 May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching of key journals. One-quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.
Results: Searches identified 23 853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care.
Conclusion: Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.