Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30572898›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2018

A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care.

James Greenwood-Lee, Lauren Jewett, Linda Woodhouse, Deborah A Marshall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James Greenwood-LeeCentre for Science, Athabasca University, 6th Floor, 345 6 Avenue SE, Calgary, Alberta, T2G 4V1, Canada.
Lauren JewettGeography & Planning, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Rm 594, 100 St George St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G3, Canada.
Linda WoodhouseFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, 3-10 Corbett Hall, 8205 114 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G4, Canada.
Deborah A MarshallCanada Research Chair, Health Services and Systems Research, Arthur J.E. Child Chair in Rheumatology Outcomes Research, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. damarsha@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-8008

Funding

Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions 201300472Arthritis Society Models of Care Catalyst Grant MOC-13-007Institute of Health Services and Policy Research (CA) Planning Grant 20132PLH
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes.

resultsWe identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies.

conclusionThe categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementReferral and ConsultationSecondary Health CareChronic illnessHealth systemInterventionPrimary careReferralSecondary careSpecialty care

Identifiers

PMID30572898
PMCPMC6302393

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.