Interventions to improve referrals from primary care to outpatient specialist services for chronic conditions: a systematic review and framework synthesis update.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Layla Bolton Saghdaoui, Smaragda Lampridou, Sara Tavares, Rachael Lear, Alun Huw Davies, Mary Wells, Sarah Onida
{"title":"Interventions to improve referrals from primary care to outpatient specialist services for chronic conditions: a systematic review and framework synthesis update.","authors":"Layla Bolton Saghdaoui, Smaragda Lampridou, Sara Tavares, Rachael Lear, Alun Huw Davies, Mary Wells, Sarah Onida","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02841-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prior systematic reviews highlight that accessing specialist healthcare to treat chronic conditions can be obstructed by variations in referral rates, inappropriate referrals, and poor communication. Structured referral proformas, peer feedback, and educational interventions involving specialists have been identified as successful strategies for improving referral rates and appropriateness. However, the success of such interventions is often dependent on specific clinical contexts, and little is known about the practicalities of implementation. Additionally, with advancements in healthcare delivery, such as e-referral systems, there is a need to explore new interventions and how they address barriers to referral.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review evaluated the updated evidence exploring interventions aiming to improve rates and/or appropriateness of referral from primary care to specialist services in patients with chronic conditions.Five academic databases were searched (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, British Nursing Index, and Public Health Database), and studies published in English between 2013 and 2023 were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute's appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of studies, and a narrative synthesis was conducted using the TiDiER framework (template for intervention description and replication).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen full-text publications and five abstracts were included. A behavioral theory or framework for intervention development was used in seven studies. All interventions were based on primary care, and thirteen studies evaluated a multi-component intervention. Process and system changes were most commonly used to improve referral, including electronic health systems, referral algorithms, collaborative working, and patient direct access. Interventions targeted at patients were the least common. Staff education was often used in addition to process and system changes. When used alone, referral algorithms and staff education were less effective at improving referral rates or appropriateness. Implementation barriers included time constraints, logistical issues, and patients/staff preconceived perceptions of referral necessity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Unsurprisingly, the success of interventions aimed at improving referral practices is based on contextual circumstances, and as with previous reviews, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.Given the challenges highlighted in this review, multi-component interventions addressing referral barriers in both primary and secondary care appear to be a successful way to improve referral practices.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023480493.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063302/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02841-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prior systematic reviews highlight that accessing specialist healthcare to treat chronic conditions can be obstructed by variations in referral rates, inappropriate referrals, and poor communication. Structured referral proformas, peer feedback, and educational interventions involving specialists have been identified as successful strategies for improving referral rates and appropriateness. However, the success of such interventions is often dependent on specific clinical contexts, and little is known about the practicalities of implementation. Additionally, with advancements in healthcare delivery, such as e-referral systems, there is a need to explore new interventions and how they address barriers to referral.

Methods: This systematic review evaluated the updated evidence exploring interventions aiming to improve rates and/or appropriateness of referral from primary care to specialist services in patients with chronic conditions.Five academic databases were searched (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, British Nursing Index, and Public Health Database), and studies published in English between 2013 and 2023 were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute's appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of studies, and a narrative synthesis was conducted using the TiDiER framework (template for intervention description and replication).

Results: Eighteen full-text publications and five abstracts were included. A behavioral theory or framework for intervention development was used in seven studies. All interventions were based on primary care, and thirteen studies evaluated a multi-component intervention. Process and system changes were most commonly used to improve referral, including electronic health systems, referral algorithms, collaborative working, and patient direct access. Interventions targeted at patients were the least common. Staff education was often used in addition to process and system changes. When used alone, referral algorithms and staff education were less effective at improving referral rates or appropriateness. Implementation barriers included time constraints, logistical issues, and patients/staff preconceived perceptions of referral necessity.

Conclusion: Unsurprisingly, the success of interventions aimed at improving referral practices is based on contextual circumstances, and as with previous reviews, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.Given the challenges highlighted in this review, multi-component interventions addressing referral barriers in both primary and secondary care appear to be a successful way to improve referral practices.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023480493.

改善慢性病从初级保健转介到门诊专科服务的干预措施:系统回顾和框架综合更新。
背景:先前的系统综述强调,获得专业医疗保健治疗慢性疾病可能会因转诊率的变化、不适当的转诊和沟通不良而受阻。结构化的转诊形式、同伴反馈和涉及专家的教育干预已被确定为提高转诊率和适当性的成功策略。然而,这种干预措施的成功往往依赖于具体的临床情况,而对实施的实用性知之甚少。此外,随着电子转诊系统等医疗保健服务的进步,有必要探索新的干预措施以及如何解决转诊障碍。方法:本系统综述评估了旨在提高慢性病患者从初级保健转介到专科服务的比率和/或适当性的干预措施的最新证据。检索了五个学术数据库(CINAHL、MEDLINE、Embase、British Nursing Index和Public Health Database),纳入了2013年至2023年间发表的英文研究。乔安娜布里格斯研究所的评估工具用于评估研究的质量,并使用TiDiER框架(干预描述和复制模板)进行叙事综合。结果:共纳入18篇全文出版物和5篇摘要。干预发展的行为理论或框架在七项研究中使用。所有干预措施均基于初级保健,13项研究评估了多组分干预措施。流程和系统变更最常用于改善转诊,包括电子卫生系统、转诊算法、协作工作和患者直接访问。针对患者的干预是最不常见的。除了流程和系统变化之外,还经常使用工作人员教育。单独使用时,转诊算法和工作人员教育在提高转诊率或适当性方面效果较差。实施障碍包括时间限制、后勤问题以及患者/工作人员对转诊必要性的先入为主的看法。结论:不出所料,旨在改善转诊实践的干预措施的成功是基于上下文环境的,正如之前的评论一样,没有放之四海而皆准的方法。鉴于本综述中强调的挑战,解决初级和二级保健中转诊障碍的多成分干预措施似乎是改善转诊实践的成功方法。审核注册:PROSPERO CRD42023480493。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信