Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38806208›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025

What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Lucy Pocock, Tanuka Palit, Adam McDermott, Sam Creavin, Emma Gilbert, Samuel Wd Merriel, Steven Moore, Sarah Purdy, Stephen Barclay, Lucy E Selman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lucy PocockBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0002-6039-9813
Tanuka PalitBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0003-1098-4173
Adam McDermottBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0002-7797-6189
Sam CreavinBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0002-6772-7111
Emma GilbertBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0002-5140-2507
Samuel Wd MerrielCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester.ORCID 0000-0003-2919-9087
Steven Mooree, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0002-4505-7743
Sarah PurdyBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0002-3445-986X
Stephen BarclayPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4505-7743
Lucy E SelmanBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0001-5747-2699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process.

aimTo determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care. DESIGN AND

settingThis was an international systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies published in English.

methodFour electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2000 to 17 May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching of key journals. One-quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.

resultsSearches identified 23 853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care.

conclusionAlthough the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationPrimary Health CareSecondary Health CareHumansPrognosisadvance care planningcommunicationcontinuity of patient careprimary health careprognosissecondary care

Identifiers

PMID38806208
PMCPMC11583038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.