Observational studyPloS one2019
Information sharing between intensive care and primary care after an episode of critical illness; A mixed methods analysis.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current strategies and future directions to enhance recovery following critical illness.Thorax · 2026Review
- Transitional care after hospitalization for sepsis in Germany- results from the population-based AVENIR cohort study.Infection · 2025Article
- Post-intensive care syndrome is a potential consequence of critical care: can intensivists afford to look away?Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Optimizing an Electronic Health Record System Used to Help Health Care Professionals Comply With a Standardized Care Pathway for Heart Failure During the Transition From Hospital To Chronic Care: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Sepsis Care Pathways-Qualitative Pilot Expert Interviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Ideal Postdischarge Follow-Up After Severe Pneumonia or Acute Respiratory Failure: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Clinicians in Diverse Settings.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Mobilizing registry data for quality improvement: A convergent mixed-methods analysis and application to spinal cord injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Hospital Discharge Summaries Are Insufficient Following ICU Stays: A Qualitative Study.Critical care explorations · 2022Article
- Post-Intensive Care COVID Survivorship Clinic: A Single-Center Experience.Critical care explorations · 2022Article
- Patient discharge from intensive care: an updated scoping review to identify tools and practices to inform high-quality care.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
- Article
- Long-term outcomes after critical illness: recent insights.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoor quality communication between hospital doctors and GPs at the time of hospital discharge is associated with adverse patient outcomes. This may be more marked after an episode of critical illness, the complications of which can persist long after hospital discharge.
aims1. to evaluate information sharing between ICU staff and GPs after a critical illness 2. to identify factors influencing the flow and utilisation of this information.
methodsParallel mixed methods observational study in an Irish setting, with equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative data derived from GP and ICU consultant questionnaires. Qualitative data came from semi-structured interviews with GPs and consultants, and were analysed using directed content analysis. Mixing of data occurred at the stage of interpretation.
resultsGPs rarely received information about an episode of critical illness directly from ICU staff, with most coming from patients and relatives. Information received from hospital sources was frequently brief and incomplete. Common communication barriers reported by consultants were insufficient time, low perceived importance and difficulty establishing GP contact. When provided information, GPs seldom actioned specific interventions, citing insufficient guidance in hospital correspondence and poor knowledge about critical illness complications and their management. A majority of all respondents thought that improved information sharing would benefit patients. Cultural influences on practice were identified in qualitative data. A priori qualitative themes were: (1) perceived benefits of information sharing, (2) factors influencing current practice and (3) strategies for optimal information sharing. Emergent themes were: (4) the central role of the GP in patient care, (5) the concept of the "whole patient journey" and (6) a culture of expectation around a GP's knowledge of hospital care.
conclusionsPractical and cultural factors contribute to suboptimal information sharing between ICU and primary care doctors around an episode of critical illness in ICU. We propose a three-milestone strategy to improve the flow and utilisation of information when patients are admitted, discharged or die within the ICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.