| Title |
Drugs, distrust and dialogue –a focus group study with Swedish GPs on discharge summary use in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12875-018-0804-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriella Caleres, Eva Lena Strandberg, Åsa Bondesson, Patrik Midlöv, Sara Modig |
| Abstract |
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. 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. 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. 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,989,045
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,504
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,706
of 341,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#42
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.