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
. 2019 May 29;9(5):e027323.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027323.

Impact of informational and relational continuity for people with palliative care needs: a mixed methods rapid review

Affiliations

Impact of informational and relational continuity for people with palliative care needs: a mixed methods rapid review

Briony F Hudson et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To identify and synthesise existing literature exploring the impact of relational and informational continuity of care on preferred place of death, hospital admissions and satisfaction for palliative care patients in qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods literature.

Design: A mixed methods rapid review.

Methods: PUBMED, PsychINFO, CINAHL were searched from June 2008 to June 2018 in order to identify original peer reviewed, primary qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research exploring the impact of continuity of care for people receiving palliative care. Synthesis methods as outlined by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group were applied to qualitative studies while meta-analyses for quantitative data were planned.

Outcomes: The impact of interventions designed to promote continuity of care for people receiving palliative care on the following outcomes was explored: achieving preferred place of death, satisfaction with care and avoidable hospital admissions.

Results: 18 eligible papers were identified (11 qualitative, 6 quantitative and 1 mixed methods papers). In all, 1951 patients and 190 family caregivers were recruited across included studies. Meta-analyses were not possible due to heterogeneity in outcome measures and tools used. Two studies described positive impact on facilitating preferred place of death. Four described a reduction in avoidable hospital admissions. No negative impacts of interventions designed to promote continuity were reported. Patient satisfaction was not assessed in quantitative studies. Participants described a significant impact on their experiences as a result of the lack of informational and relational continuity.

Conclusions: This rapid review highlights the impact that continuity of care can have on the experiences of patients receiving palliative care. The evidence for the impact of continuity on place of death and hospital admissions is limited. Methods for enhancing, and recording continuity should be considered in the design and development of future healthcare interventions to support people receiving palliative care.

Keywords: continuity of patient care; palliative care; qualitative research; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data extracted from identified studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram outlining study identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion.

References

    1. Freeman G, Hughes J. Continuity of care and the patient experience. An Inquiry into the Quality of General Practice in England: The Kings Fund, 2010.
    1. Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, et al. . Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 2003;327:1219–21. 10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1219 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mainous AG, Baker R, Love MM, et al. . Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fam Med 2001;33:22–7. - PubMed
    1. Pandhi N, Saultz JW. Patients' perceptions of interpersonal continuity of care. J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:390–7. - PubMed
    1. BMA. National Survey of GPs. The Future of General Practice. 2015. British Medical Association.

Publication types