Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Nov;69(11):1257-67.
doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12686. Epub 2015 Jul 6.

Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

P Vermeir  1   2 , D Vandijck  1   3   4 , S Degroote  1   3 , R Peleman  2   5 , R Verhaeghe  3   5 , E Mortier  5 , G Hallaert  5 , S Van Daele  5 , W Buylaert  5   6 , D Vogelaers  1   2   5
Affiliations
Review

Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

P Vermeir et al. Int J Clin Pract. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: Effective and efficient communication is crucial in healthcare. Written communication remains the most prevalent form of communication between specialised and primary care. We aimed at reviewing the literature on the quality of written communication, the impact of communication inefficiencies and recommendations to improve written communication in healthcare.

Design: Narrative literature review.

Methods: A search was carried out on the databases PubMed, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library by means of the (MeSH)terms 'communication', 'primary health care', 'correspondence', 'patient safety', 'patient handoff' and 'continuity of patient care'. Reviewers screened 4609 records and 462 full texts were checked according following inclusion criteria: (1) publication between January 1985 and March 2014, (2) availability as full text in English, (3) categorisation as original research, reviews, meta-analyses or letters to the editor.

Results: A total of 69 articles were included in this review. It was found that poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes: discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction and inefficient use of valuable resources, both in unnecessary investigations and physician worktime as well as economic consequences.

Conclusion: There is room for improvement of both content and timeliness of written communication. The delineation of ownership of the communication process should be clear. Peer review, process indicators and follow-up tools are required to measure the impact of quality improvement initiatives. Communication between caregivers should feature more prominently in graduate and postgraduate training, to become engraved as an essential skill and quality characteristic of each caregiver.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Review stages based on PRISMA flow diagram 8
Figure 2
Figure 2
Conceptual model of communication outcomes in a hospital 6
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Berendsen AJ, Groenier KH, de Jong GM et al. Assessment of patient's experiences across the interface between primary and secondary care: Consumer Quality Index Continuum of care. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 77: 123–7. - PubMed
    1. Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO et al. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital‐based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 2007; 297: 831–41. - PubMed
    1. Francois J. Tool to assess the quality of consultation and referral request letters in family medicine. Can Fam Phys 2011; 57: 574–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005; 83: 457–502. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moosbrugger MC. Unclogging the physician referral network. Winning referrals requires research and tracking. Healthc Exec 1988; 3: 28–9. - PubMed