ArticleRevista de saude publica2020
Do primary and specialized care physicians know and use coordination mechanisms?
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physicians' and nurses' perspective on chronic disease care practices in Primary Health Care in Brazil: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Understanding How to Improve the Use of Clinical Coordination Mechanisms between Primary and Secondary Care Doctors: Clues from Catalonia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze if primary and specialized care physicians know and use care coordination mechanisms between healthcare levels.
methodsCross-sectional survey study, with the application of the COORDENA-BR instrument to primary and specialized care physicians in a public heathcare network, medium-sized municipality, from June to October 2019. The questionnaire addresses knowledge, frequency of sending and receiving, purpose, characteristics and difficulties in using feedback or mutual adaptation and standardization mechanisms to promote coordination of care service between healthcare levels.
resultsFeedback instruments such as referral and reply letters, hospital discharge report and WhatsApp are widely known by professionals of both levels, without significant differences. Clinical sessions and protocols are not well-known, especially in specialized care, which supposes a low usage of standardization mechanisms to a better coordination between the healthcare levels. Despite being well-known and easy, traditional feedback instruments such as referral and reply letters are not widely used. Fewer physicians knew the protocols, mainly in specialized care. They pointed difficulties in their application, such as insufficient exams and unavailable supplies in the healthcare network. Clinical sessions were unknown and registered low participation frequency. Care overload, low institutionalization and time constraints were barriers identified for the incorporation of care coordination mechanisms in the work process in primary and specialized care, in addition to those related to the provision of health services in the network.
conclusionWe conclude the fragmentation of the system and care can be faced in the complementarity of measures that make it possible to know the mechanisms, develop professional skills, institutionalize and promote organizational conditions for the effective use of coordination mechanisms throughout the healthcare network.
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.