Search

Background, Aims and Objectives: This scoping review aimed to understand potential barriers and facilitators in transitioning patients from specialty to primary care settings, to inform the implementation of an intervention to promote active consideration of psychiatrically stable patients for transition from the specialty mental health setting back to primary care. Methods: Guided by Levac and colleagues' six‐stage methodological framework for conducting scoping studies, we systematically searched electronic article databases for peer‐reviewed literature from January 2000 to May 2016. We included identified articles that discuss findings related to potential barriers and facilitators in transitioning patients from specialty to primary care settings. We performed descriptive and thematic analyses of results to generate emergent codes and their categorizations. Results: Our database search yielded 906 unique articles, 23 of which we included in our scoping review. All but one of the included studies were conducted in North America. Identified potential barriers and facilitators spanned eight emergent themes—(i) primary care accessibility, especially in terms of timely availability of appointments, (ii) clarity in respective roles of specialty care and primary care in managing a patient, (iii) timely exchange of information, (iv) transition process management, (v) perceived ability of primary care providers to manage specialty conditions, (vi) perceived ability of patients to self‐manage, (vii) leadership support and (viii) support for implementing initiatives to promote transitions. Conclusions: Findings from this scoping review enable an increased understanding of current practices and considerations regarding care transitions from specialty to primary care settings. The importance of role clarification, shared clinical information systems, confidence in care competency, and adequate organizational support to promote appropriate transitions were themes most widely reported across the reviewed studies. Few studies specifically examined the transition from specialty mental health to primary care. Future studies should account for mental health‐specific symptomatic patterns and recovery trajectories, such as prevalent chronicity and frequency of relapse, in planning and conducting transitions from specialty mental health back to primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Electronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes.Materials and Methods: We searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome.Results: We found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias.Conclusion: Despite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to understand if and how Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing home (CLC) staff experience difficulty in providing care that is both resident-centered (RCC) and concordant with quality standards. Methods: Twelve VA CLCs were selected for site visits, stratified based on rankings on a composite quality measure (calculated from various indicators) and resident-centered care (RCC) progress (based on a culture change tool). Staff were interviewed about efforts and barriers to achieving goals in RCC and quality, and the interview transcripts systematically analyzed for themes. Results: We interviewed 141 participants, including senior leaders, middle managers, and front-line staff. An emergent theme was conflict between RCC and quality, although participants varied in their perceptions of its impact. Participants perceived three conflict types: 1) between resident preferences and medically indicated actions; 2) between resident preferences and the needs or safety of others; and 3) limits of staff time or authority. Conclusions: CLC staff perceive conflicts between RCC and care consistent with quality imperatives. Clinical implications: Variation in perceived RCC-quality conflicts suggests that policy clarifications and additional training may provide guidance in dealing with such dilemmas. It may be prudent to clearly communicate to what boundaries exist to RCC in the evolving CLC environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]