Patients' experiences of referral for colorectal cancer

A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies

BACKGROUND

The referral process is an important research focus because of the potential consequences of delays, especially for patients with serious medical conditions that need immediate care, such as those with metastatic cancer. Thus, a systematic literature review of recent and influential manuscripts is critical to understanding the current methods and future directions in order to improve the referral process.

METHODS

A hybrid bibliometric-structured review was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Searches were conducted of three databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, in addition to the references from the eligible papers. The papers were considered to be eligible if they were relevant English articles or reviews that were published from January 2010 to June 2021. The searches were conducted using three groups of keywords, and bibliometric analysis was performed, followed by content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 163 papers that were published in impactful journals between January 2010 and June 2021 were selected. These papers were then reviewed, analyzed, and categorized as follows: descriptive analysis (n = 77), cause and effect (n = 12), interventions (n = 50), and quality management (n = 24). Six future research directions were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal attention was given to the study of the primary referral of blood cancer cases versus those with solid cancer types, which is a gap that future studies should address. More research is needed in order to optimize the referral process, specifically for suspected hematological cancer patients.

Clinical practice guideline adherence in oncology: A qualitative study of insights from clinicians in Australia

BACKGROUND

The burden of cancer is large in Australia, and rates of cancer Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) adherence is suboptimal across various cancers.

METHODS

The objective of this study is to characterise clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer CPG adherence in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from 33 oncology-focused clinicians (surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and haematologists). Clinicians were recruited in 2019 and 2020 through purposive and snowball sampling from 7 hospitals across Sydney, Australia, and interviewed either face-to-face in hospitals or by phone. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken. Human research ethics committee approval and governance approval was granted (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127).

RESULTS

Five broad themes and subthemes of key barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment CPG adherence were identified: Theme 1: CPG content; Theme 2: Individual clinician and patient factors; Theme 3: Access to, awareness of and availability of CPGs; Theme 4: Organisational and cultural factors; and Theme 5: Development and implementation factors. The most frequently reported barriers to adherence were CPGs not catering for patient complexities, being slow to be updated, patient treatment preferences, geographical challenges for patients who travel large distances to access cancer services and limited funding of CPG recommended drugs. The most frequently reported facilitators to adherence were easy accessibility, peer review, multidisciplinary engagement or MDT attendance, and transparent CPG development by trusted, multidisciplinary experts. CPGs provide a reassuring framework for clinicians to check their treatment plans against. Clinicians want cancer CPGs to be frequently updated utilising a wiki-like process, and easily accessible online via a comprehensive database, coordinated by a well-trusted development body.

CONCLUSION

Future implementation strategies of cancer CPGs in Australia should be tailored to consider these context-specific barriers and facilitators, taking into account both the content of CPGs and the communication of that content. The establishment of a centralised, comprehensive, online database, with living wiki-style cancer CPGs, coordinated by a well-funded development body, along with incorporation of recommendations into point-of-care decision support would potentially address many of the issues identified.

Patient-reported diagnostic intervals to colorectal cancer diagnosis in the Midland region of New Zealand: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

New Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) but low rates of early detection. The majority of CRC is diagnosed through general practice, where lengthy diagnostic intervals are common. We investigated factors contributing to diagnostic delay in a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with CRC.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from the Midland region and interviewed about their diagnostic experience using a questionnaire based on a modified Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and SYMPTOM questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population characteristics. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used to analyse factors influencing diagnostic intervals.

RESULTS

Data from 176 patients were analysed, of which 65 (36.9%) experienced a general practitioner (GP) diagnostic interval of >120 days and 96 (54.5%) experienced a total diagnostic interval (TDI) > 120 days. Patients reporting rectal bleeding were less likely to experience a long TDI (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.78) and appraisal/help-seeking interval (OR, 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.59). Patients <60 were more likely to report a longer appraisal/help-seeking interval (OR, 3.32, 95% CI: 1.17-9.46). Female (OR, 2.19, 95% CI: 1.08-4.44) and Māori patients (OR, 3.18, 95% CI: 1.04-9.78) were more likely to experience a long GP diagnostic interval.

CONCLUSION

NZ patients with CRC can experience long diagnostic intervals, attributed to patient and health system factors. Young patients, Māori, females, and patients experiencing change of bowel habit may be at particular risk. We need to increase symptom awareness of CRC for patients and GPs. Concentrated efforts are needed to ensure equity for Māori in access to screening, diagnostics, and treatment.

The patient perspective on the preoperative colorectal cancer care pathway and preparedness for surgery and postoperative recovery-a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore colorectal cancer (CRC) patients' perspectives and experiences regarding the preoperative surgical care pathway and their subsequent preparedness for surgery and postoperative recovery.

METHODS

CRC patients were recruited using purposive sampling and were interviewed three times (preoperatively, and 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively) using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed independently by two researchers using thematic analysis with open coding.

RESULTS

Data saturation was achieved after including 18 patients. Preoperative factors that contributed to a feeling of preparedness for surgery and recovery were patient-centred- and professional healthcare organization, sincere and personal guidance, and thorough information provision. Postoperatively, patients with complications or physical complaints experienced unmet information needs regarding the impact of complications and what to expect from postoperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative period is a vital period to prepare patients for surgery and recovery in which patients most value personalized information, personal guidance and professionalism. According to CRC patients, the feeling of preparedness for surgery and recovery can be improved by continually providing dosed information. This information should provide the patient with patient-tailored perspectives regarding the impact of (potential) complications and what to expect during recovery.

How do colorectal cancer patients rate their GP: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

New Zealand (NZ) has a high incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and low rates of early diagnosis. With screening not yet nationwide, the majority of CRC is diagnosed through general practice. A good patient-general practitioner (GP) relationship can facilitate prompt diagnosis, but when there is a breakdown in this relationship, delays can occur. Delayed diagnosis of CRC in NZ receives a disproportionally high number of complaints directed against GPs, suggesting deficits in the patient-GP connection. We aimed to investigate patient-reported confidence and ratings of their GP following the diagnostic process.

METHODS

This study is a mixed methods analysis of responses to a structured questionnaire and free text comments from patients newly diagnosed with CRC in the Midland region of NZ. A total of 195 patients responded to the structured questionnaire, and 113 patients provided additional free text comments. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study population and chi square analysis determined the statistical significance of factors possibly linked to delay. Free text comments were analysed using a thematic framework.

RESULTS

Most participants rated their GP as 'Very good/Good' at communication with patients about their health conditions and involving them in decisions about their care, and 6.7% of participants rated their overall level of confidence and trust in their GP as 'Not at all'. Age, gender, ethnicity and a longer diagnostic interval were associated with lower confidence and trust. Free text comments were grouped in to three themes: 1. GP Interpersonal skills; (communication, listening, taking patient symptoms seriously), 2. Technical competence; (speed of referral, misdiagnoses, lack of physical examination), and 3. Organisation of general practice care; (appointment length, getting an appointment, continuity of care).

CONCLUSIONS

Māori, females, and younger participants were more likely to report low confidence and trust in their GP. Participants associate a poor diagnostic experience with deficits in the interpersonal and technical skills of their GP, and health system factors within general practice. Short appointment times, access to appointments and poor GP continuity are important components of how patients assess their experience and are particularly important to ensure equal access for Māori patients.

Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer diagnosis in New Zealand: a qualitative study

Background

New Zealand (NZ) has high rates of colorectal cancer but low rates of early diagnosis. Due to a lack of understanding of the pre-diagnostic experience from the patient’s perspective, it is necessary to investigate potential patient and health system factors that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals. Previous qualitative studies have discussed delays using The Model of Pathways to Treatment, but this has not been explored in the NZ context. This study aimed to understand the patient experience and perception of their general practitioner (GP) through the diagnostic process in the Waikato region of NZ. In particular, we sought to investigate potential barriers and facilitators that contribute to longer diagnostic intervals.

Methods

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee. Twenty-eight participants, diagnosed with colorectal cancer, were interviewed about their experience. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using The Model of Pathways to Treatment framework (intervals: appraisal, help-seeking, diagnostic).

Results

Participant appraisal of symptoms was a barrier to prompt diagnosis, particularly if symptoms were normalised, intermittent, or isolated in occurrence. Successful self-management techniques also resulted in delayed help-seeking. However if symptoms worsened, disruption to work and daily routines were important facilitators to seeking a GP consultation. Participants positively appraised GPs if they showed good technical competence and were proactive in investigating symptoms. Negative GP appraisals were associated with a lack of physical examinations and misdiagnosis, and left participants feeling dehumanised during the diagnostic process. However high levels of GP interpersonal competence could override poor technical competence, resulting in an overall positive experience, even if the cancer was diagnosed at an advanced stage. Māori participants often appraised symptoms inclusive of their sociocultural environment and considered the impact of their symptoms in relation to family.

Conclusions

The findings of this study highlight the importance of tailored colorectal cancer symptom communication in health campaigns, and indicate the significance of the interpersonal competence aspect of GP-patient interactions. These findings suggest that interpersonal competence be overtly displayed in all GP interactions to ensure a higher likelihood of a positive experience for the patient.

Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer

Background

Timeliness is viewed as a key feature of health‐care quality. Internationally, this is challenging. In England, cancer waiting time targets are currently not being met. For example, between 2015 and 2018 only 71% of patients with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer started treatment within the recommended 62 days of referral.

Objective

We explored patients’ experiences to identify areas for service improvement.

Design

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted.

Setting and participants

Twenty patients who were referred through the urgent (two‐week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving first treatment were recruited.

Data analysis

Data from the interviews were analysed thematically.

Results

Four themes were developed: organization of care; diagnosis; support; and views and expectations of the NHS. Patients described cross‐cutting issues such as complex and varied pathways and uncertainty about what would happen next. They felt daunted by the intensity and speed of investigations. They were presented with a recommended course of action rather than options and had little involvement in decision making. They were grateful for care, reluctant to complain and resigned to the status quo.

Discussion and conclusions

In order to meet patient needs, the NHS needs to improve communication and streamline pathways. Future cancer pathways also need to be designed to support shared decision making, be truly person‐centred and informed by patient experience.

Comparing Pathways to Diagnosis and Treatment for Rural and Urban Patients With Colorectal or Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer patients living in rural areas have poorer outcomes than urban counterparts, but such disparities are not found for breast cancer. Although time to care may contribute to rural-urban disparities, few studies examine patient experiences to understand how and why delays may occur. We compared rural and urban patient experiences of pathways to colorectal or breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 43 patients (49% colorectal; 60% rural, median 7 months postdiagnosis). A framework analysis was applied using the Model of Pathways to Treatment.

FINDINGS

Rural and urban patients expressed similar attitudes and reasons for prolonged symptom appraisal and help-seeking triggers. However, some rural patients reported long waiting times to see a Primary Care Practitioner (PCP) and perceived greater gatekeeping to diagnostic services. Patient perceptions of the urgency of PCP referral could impact behavior, such as waiting longer to book appointments. Colorectal cancer patients reported more variable types of symptoms, interpretation, and coping strategies, as well as diverse presentation routes and reduced sense of urgency, compared to breast cancer patients. Waiting time for colonoscopy could be long, particularly in the public health system, but mammograms were quickly arranged.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathway variation was more evident by cancer type than residential location. However, access to primary care and diagnostic services for rural patients with colorectal cancer may be important policy targets. Future research should investigate the impact of diagnostic service accessibility on PCP referral behavior to further understand rural-urban disparities.

Perceptions of shared care among survivors of colorectal cancer from non-English-speaking and English-speaking backgrounds: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience difficulty navigating complex care pathways. Sharing care between GPs and specialist services has been proposed to improve health outcomes in cancer survivors following hospital discharge. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups are known to have poorer outcomes following cancer treatment but little is known about their perceptions of shared care following surgery for CRC. This study aimed to explore how non-English-speaking and English-speaking patients perceive care to be coordinated amongst various health practitioners.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using data from face to face semi-structured interviews and one focus group in a culturally diverse area of Sydney with non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors. Participants were recruited in community settings and were interviewed in English, Spanish or Vietnamese. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by researchers fluent in those languages. Data were coded and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty-two CRC survivors participated in the study. Participants from non-English-speaking and English-speaking groups described similar barriers to care, but non-English-speaking participants described additional communication difficulties and perceived discrimination. Non-English-speaking participants relied on family members and bilingual GPs for assistance with communication and care coordination. Factors that influenced the care pathways used by participants and how care was shared between the specialist and GP included patient and practitioner preference, accessibility, complexity of care needs, and requirements for assistance with understanding information and navigating the health system, that were particularly difficult for non-English-speaking CRC survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Both non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors described a blend of specialist-led or GP-led care depending on the complexity of care required, informational needs, and how engaged and accessible they perceived the specialist or GP to be. Findings from this study highlight the role of the bilingual GP in assisting CALD participants to understand information and to navigate their care pathways following CRC surgery.

Hospital Choice in Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study

AIMS

There is limited evidence about how patients respond to hospital choice policies, the factors that inform and influence patient choices or how relevant these policies are to cancer patients. This study sought to evaluate hospital choice policies from the perspective of men who received treatment for prostate cancer in the English National Health Service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 25 men across England. Fourteen men had chosen to receive treatment at a cancer centre other than their nearest. Interviews were recorded and analysed concurrently with data collection.

RESULTS

Men highlight that the geographical configuration of specialist services, the perceived urgency of the condition and the protocolisation of treatment pathways all limit their choice of a specialist treatment centre. Diseases such as cancer appear not to be well suited to the patient choice model, given the lack of hospital-level outcome data. Men instead use proxy measures of quality, leaving them vulnerable to influence by marketing and media reports. Men wishing to consider other treatment centres need to independently collect and appraise complex treatment-related information, which creates socioeconomic inequities in access to treatments. A positive impact of the choice agenda is that it enables patients to 'exit care' not meeting their expectations.

DISCUSSION

Policy makers have failed to consider the organisational, disease-specific and socio-cognitive factors that influence a patient's ability to choose their cancer treatment provider. Valid comparative hospital-level performance information is required to guide patients' choices, otherwise patients will continue to depend on informal sources, which will not necessarily improve their health care outcomes.

A systematic review of geographical differences in management and outcomes for colorectal cancer in Australia

BACKGROUND

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world, presenting considerable health, economic, and societal burden. Over a third of the Australian population live in regional areas and research has shown they experience a range of health disadvantages that result in a higher disease burden and lower life expectancy. The extent to which geographical disparities exist in CRC management and outcomes has not been systematically explored. The present review aims to identify the nature of geographical disparities in CRC survival, clinical management, and psychosocial outcomes.

METHODS

The review followed PRISMA guidelines and searches were undertaken using seven databases covering articles between 1 January 1990 and 20 April 2016 in an Australian setting. Inclusion criteria stipulated studies had to be peer-reviewed, in English, reporting data from Australia on CRC patients and relevant to one of fourteen questions examining geographical variations in a) survival outcomes, b) patient and cancer characteristics, c) diagnostic and treatment characteristics and d) psychosocial and quality of life outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight quantitative, two qualitative, and three mixed-methods studies met review criteria. Twenty-seven studies were of high quality, sixteen studies were of moderate quality, and no studies were found to be low quality. Individuals with CRC living in regional, rural, and remote areas of Australia showed poorer survival and experienced less optimal clinical management. However, this effect is likely moderated by a range of other factors (e.g., SES, age, gender) and did appear to vary linearly with increasing distance from metropolitan centres. No studies examined differences in use of stoma, or support with stomas, by geographic location.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, despite evidence of disparity in CRC survival and clinical management across geographic locations, the evidence was limited and at times inconsistent. Further, access to treatment and services may not be the main driver of disparities, with individual patient characteristics and type of region also playing an important role. A better understanding of factors driving ongoing and significant geographical disparities in cancer related outcomes is required to inform the development of effective interventions to improve the health and welfare of regional Australians.

How rural and urban patients in Australia with colorectal or breast cancer experience choice of treatment provider: A qualitative study

Modern healthcare systems promote patient choice of cancer treatment provider, but little is known about how place of residence influences decision-making. This research explored how rural and urban patients with breast or colorectal cancer experience choice of cancer treatment provider in Victoria, Australia. Realist thematic analysis of 43 semi-structured telephone interviews identified little active participation in decision-making regardless of area of residence or cancer diagnosis. Perceptions of choice were impacted by urgency for treatment, insurance status and access to providers, a key issue for rural patients. All patients wanted high quality care, but needed to trust health professional's recommendations. Rural patients experienced more complex decision-making, balancing a range of social factors with perceptions about quality of accessible care. Further research into variation in quality of care and complex cancer pathways for rural and urban cancer patients is warranted to inform choices and enhance patient-centred care.

Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting

BACKGROUND

Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified.

METHODS

In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities' stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community.

RESULTS

Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05). Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the snowball sampling group.

CONCLUSIONS

In each of the two similar hard-to-reach communities, a community advisory board partnered with researchers to implement a different sampling method to recruit stakeholders. The snowball sampling method achieved greater participation with more Hispanics but also more individuals with disabilities than a purposive-convenience sampling method. However, priorities for research on chronic pain from both stakeholder groups were similar. Although utilizing a snowball sampling method appears to be superior, further research is needed on implementation costs and resources.

Impact of referral templates on patient experience of the referral and care process: a cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate if a referral intervention improves the patient experience of the referral and treatment process.

SETTING

Interface between 14 primary care surgeries and a district general hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

The 14 general practitioner (GP) surgeries (7 intervention, 7 control) in the area around the University Hospital of North Norway Harstad were randomised and all completed the study. Consecutive individual patients were recruited at their hospital appointment. A total of 500 patients were recruited with 281 in the intervention and 219 in the control arm.

INTERVENTIONS

Dissemination of referral templates for 4 diagnostic groups (dyspepsia, suspected colorectal cancer, chest pain and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) coupled with intermittent surgery visits by study personnel. The control arm continued standard referral practice. The intervention was in use for 2.5 years.

OUTCOME

The main outcome was a quality indicator score. This paper reports a secondary outcome, the patient experience, as measured by self-report questionnaires. GPs in the intervention group could not be blinded. Patients were blinded to intervention status. Analysis was based on single-question comparison with a questionnaire subscore used to assess the effect of clustering.

RESULTS

On the individual questions, overall satisfaction was very high with minor differences between the intervention and control group. Interestingly, the most negative responses, in both groups concerned questions relating to patient interaction and information. Very little evidence of clustering was found with an estimated intracluster correlations coefficient at 1.21e^-11.

CONCLUSIONS

In total, this indicates no clear effect of the implementation of referral templates on the patient experience, in a setting of generally high patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01470963; Results.

Decision making and referral from primary care for possible lung and colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of patients' experiences

BACKGROUND

The challenge for GPs when assessing whether to refer a patient for cancer investigation is that many cancer symptoms are also caused by benign self-limiting illness. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) referral guidelines emphasise that the patient should be involved in the decision-making process and be informed of the reasons for referral. Research to date, however, has not examined the extent to which these guidelines are borne out in practice.

AIM

To assess the degree to which patients are involved in the decision to be referred for investigation for symptoms associated with cancer and their understanding of the referral.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative interview study of patients referred to secondary care for symptoms suspicious of lung and colorectal cancer. Patients were recruited from two regions of England using maximum variation sampling.

METHOD

Transcribed interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The analysis was based on 34 patient interviews. Patients in both symptom pathways reported little involvement in the decision to be referred for investigation. This tended to be accompanied by a patient expectation for referral, however, to explain ongoing and un-resolving symptoms. It was also found that reasons for referral tended to be couched in non-specific terms rather than cancer investigation, even when the patient was on a cancer-specific pathway.

CONCLUSION

GPs should consider a more overt discussion with patients when referring them for further investigation of symptoms suspicious of cancer. This would align clinical practice with NICE guidelines and encourage more open discussion between GPs and primary care patients around cancer.

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

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.