4.2 Article

Drugs, distrust and dialogue - a focus group study with Swedish GPs on discharge summary use in primary care

期刊

BMC FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-018-0804-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gyllenstierna Krapperup foundation
  2. Ribbingska foundation
  3. Region Skane

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Discharge summary with medication report effectively counteracts drug-related problems due to insufficient information transfer in care transitions. The benefits of the discharge summary may be lost if it is not adequately used, and factors affecting optimal use by the GP are of interest. Since the views of Swedish GPs are unexplored, this study aimed to explore and understand GPs experiences, perceptions and feelings regarding the use of the discharge summary with medication report. Method: This qualitative study was based on four focus group discussion with 18 GPs and resident physicians in family medicine which were performed in 2016 and 2017. A semi-structured interview guide was used. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: The analysis resulted in three final main themes: Importance of the discharge summary, Role of the GP and Create dialogue with six categories; Benefits for the GP and perceived benefits for the patient, GP use of the information, Significance of different documents, Spider in the web, Terminus/End station and Improved information transfer in care transitions. Overall, the participants described clear benefits with the discharge summary when accurate although perceived deficiencies were also quite rife. Conclusion: The GPs experiences and views of the discharge summary revealed clear benefits regarding mainly medication information, awareness of any plans as well as shared knowledge with the patient. However, perceived deficiencies of the discharge summary affected its use by the GP and enhanced communication was called for.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据