Patients’ perspectives on the medical primary-secondary care interface: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research

Rod Sampson, Jamie Cooper, Rosaline Barbour, Rob Polson, Philip Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives To synthesise the published literature on the patient experience of the medical primary–secondary care interface and to determine priorities for future work in this field aimed at improving clinical outcomes. Design Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Setting International primary–secondary care interface. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full text, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Health Business Elite, Biomedica Reference Collection: Comprehensive Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, eBook Collection, Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes and Social Sciences Citation Index, and grey literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were full research papers employing qualitative methodology to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Review methods The 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data. Results The search identified 690 articles, of which 39 were selected for full-text review. 20 articles were included in the systematic review that encompassed a total of 689 patients from 10 countries. 4 important areas specific to the primary–secondary care interface from the patients’ perspective emerged: barriers to care, communication, coordination, and ‘relationships and personal value’. Conclusions and implications of key findings Patients should be the focus of any transfer of care between primary and secondary systems. From their perspective, areas for improvement may be classified into four domains that should usefully guide future work aimed at improving quality at this important interface. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42014009486.
Original languageEnglish
Article number008708
JournalBMJ Open
Volume5
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Oct 2015

Fingerprint

Secondary Care
Qualitative Research
Primary Health Care
Library Science
Information Science
Literature
Hares
Behavioral Sciences
Social Sciences
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Patient Care
Communication
Psychology
Technology
Health
Research

Cite this

Patients’ perspectives on the medical primary-secondary care interface : systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. / Sampson, Rod; Cooper, Jamie; Barbour, Rosaline; Polson, Rob; Wilson, Philip.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 5, No. 10, 008708, 15.10.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a2710cf148db47a080793f33a99f7ced,
title = "Patients’ perspectives on the medical primary-secondary care interface: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research",
abstract = "Objectives To synthesise the published literature on the patient experience of the medical primary–secondary care interface and to determine priorities for future work in this field aimed at improving clinical outcomes. Design Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Setting International primary–secondary care interface. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full text, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Health Business Elite, Biomedica Reference Collection: Comprehensive Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, eBook Collection, Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes and Social Sciences Citation Index, and grey literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were full research papers employing qualitative methodology to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Review methods The 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data. Results The search identified 690 articles, of which 39 were selected for full-text review. 20 articles were included in the systematic review that encompassed a total of 689 patients from 10 countries. 4 important areas specific to the primary–secondary care interface from the patients’ perspective emerged: barriers to care, communication, coordination, and ‘relationships and personal value’. Conclusions and implications of key findings Patients should be the focus of any transfer of care between primary and secondary systems. From their perspective, areas for improvement may be classified into four domains that should usefully guide future work aimed at improving quality at this important interface. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42014009486.",
author = "Rod Sampson and Jamie Cooper and Rosaline Barbour and Rob Polson and Philip Wilson",
note = "Funding NHS Highland Research, Development & Innovation Department, Aberdeen University, and Stirling University provided funds to meet publication costs.",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008708",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patients’ perspectives on the medical primary-secondary care interface

T2 - systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research

AU - Sampson, Rod

AU - Cooper, Jamie

AU - Barbour, Rosaline

AU - Polson, Rob

AU - Wilson, Philip

N1 - Funding NHS Highland Research, Development & Innovation Department, Aberdeen University, and Stirling University provided funds to meet publication costs.

PY - 2015/10/15

Y1 - 2015/10/15

N2 - Objectives To synthesise the published literature on the patient experience of the medical primary–secondary care interface and to determine priorities for future work in this field aimed at improving clinical outcomes. Design Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Setting International primary–secondary care interface. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full text, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Health Business Elite, Biomedica Reference Collection: Comprehensive Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, eBook Collection, Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes and Social Sciences Citation Index, and grey literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were full research papers employing qualitative methodology to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Review methods The 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data. Results The search identified 690 articles, of which 39 were selected for full-text review. 20 articles were included in the systematic review that encompassed a total of 689 patients from 10 countries. 4 important areas specific to the primary–secondary care interface from the patients’ perspective emerged: barriers to care, communication, coordination, and ‘relationships and personal value’. Conclusions and implications of key findings Patients should be the focus of any transfer of care between primary and secondary systems. From their perspective, areas for improvement may be classified into four domains that should usefully guide future work aimed at improving quality at this important interface. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42014009486.

AB - Objectives To synthesise the published literature on the patient experience of the medical primary–secondary care interface and to determine priorities for future work in this field aimed at improving clinical outcomes. Design Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Setting International primary–secondary care interface. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full text, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Health Business Elite, Biomedica Reference Collection: Comprehensive Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, eBook Collection, Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes and Social Sciences Citation Index, and grey literature. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were full research papers employing qualitative methodology to explore patients’ perspectives of the medical primary–secondary care interface. Review methods The 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data. Results The search identified 690 articles, of which 39 were selected for full-text review. 20 articles were included in the systematic review that encompassed a total of 689 patients from 10 countries. 4 important areas specific to the primary–secondary care interface from the patients’ perspective emerged: barriers to care, communication, coordination, and ‘relationships and personal value’. Conclusions and implications of key findings Patients should be the focus of any transfer of care between primary and secondary systems. From their perspective, areas for improvement may be classified into four domains that should usefully guide future work aimed at improving quality at this important interface. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42014009486.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008708

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008708

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 10

M1 - 008708

ER -