ObjectivesResearch concentrating on continuity of care for chronic, non-communicable disease (NCD) patients in resource-constrained settings is currently limited and focusses on inpatients. Outpatient care requires attention as this is where NCD patients often seek treatment and optimal handover of information is essential. We investigated handover, healthcare communication and barriers to continuity of care for chronic NCD outpatients in India. We also explored potential interventions for improving storage and exchange of healthcare information.MethodsA mixed-methods design was used across five healthcare facilities in Kerala and Himachal Pradesh states. Questionnaires from 513 outpatients with cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, or diabetes covered the form and comprehensiveness of information exchange between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and between HCPs and patients. Semi-structured interviews with outpatients and HCPs explored handover, healthcare communication and intervention ideas. Barriers to continuity of care were identified through triangulation of all data sources.ResultsAlmost half (46%) of patients self-referred to hospital outpatient clinics (OPCs). Patient-held healthcare information was often poorly recorded on unstructured sheets of paper; 24% of OPC documents contained the following: diagnosis, medication, long-term care and follow-up information. Just 55% of patients recalled receiving verbal follow-up and medication instructions during OPC appointments. Qualitative themes included patient preference for hospital visits, system factors, inconsistent doctor-patient communication and attitudes towards medical documents. Barriers were hospital time constraints, inconsistent referral practices and absences of OPC medical record-keeping, structured patient-held medical documents and clinical handover training. Patients and HCPs were in favour of the introduction of patient-held booklets for storing and transporting medical documents.ConclusionsDeficiencies in communicative practices are compromising the continuity of chronic NCD outpatient care. Targeted systems-based interventions are urgently required to improve information provision and exchange. Our findings indicate that well-designed patient-held booklets are likely to be an acceptable, affordable and effective part of the solution.

SummaryThe effects of prescribing guidelines for analgesia were assessed by auditing prescriptions for opioids before and after the introduction of hospital prescribing guidelines. Opioid prescriptions were collected by the pharmacy department over a 2-week period in November 1994 and repeated in November 1995. Following the initial audit, analgesic prescribing guidelines were introduced. A statistically significant increase was achieved in the number of prescriptions that were correct for both dose and frequency according to both the British National Formulary recommendations (40-61%; p < 0.001) and our Acute Pain Service guidelines (16-26%; p < 0.05). There was a statistically significant decrease in the number of prescriptions that were inadequate for both dose and frequency according to both the British National Formulary recommendations (18-3%; p < 0.001) and our Acute Pain Service guidelines (36-17%; p = 0.001). The use of accessible prescribing guidelines promotes demonstrable improvements in opioid prescribing.

BackgroundA system of clinical records accessible by both patients and their attending healthcare professionals facilitates continuity of care and patient-centred care, thereby improving clinical outcomes. The need for such a system has become greater as the proportion of patients with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) requiring ongoing care increases. This is particularly true in low-income and middle-income countries where the burden of these diseases is greatest.ObjectiveTo describe a nationwide patient-held health booklet (PHHB) system and investigate its use and completeness for clinical information transfer during chronic NCD outpatient visits in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.MethodsQualitative and quantitative methodologies were employed in this mixed-methods study. Structured interviews were used to study a sample of adult patients with chronic NCDs attending the outpatient departments (OPDs) of two large, public secondary care hospitals ; artefact reviews were used to analyse the content of the written documents relating to their clinical care; and snowball methodology was used to identify policy and training documents.Results96% (379/395) brought handover documentation from previous provider/s: 94% had PHHBs, 27% other additional documents and 4% had nothing. 67% were referred from primary care and 44% referred back for follow-up. On leaving the OPD, irrespective of requirements for computer data entry, doctors provided written clinical information in the PHHB for 93% of patients. 84% of patients recalled being given verbal information. However, only 41% of the consultation with written information included all three key handover information items (diagnosis, management/treatment and follow-up). The PHHBs were the best completed type of document, with evidence that they were consulted by patients (80%), public (95%) and private (77%) providers. Living >1 hour away (OR=0.28; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61) decreased the likelihood of receiving written management/treatment information; living >1 hour away (OR=0.48; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.87), comorbidity (OR=0.55; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.87) and returning to secondary care (OR=0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80) all independently decreased the likelihood of receiving written follow-up information. A Ministry order mandates the use of the booklet, but there were no other related policies, guidelines or clinician training.ConclusionThe universal PHHBs were well accepted, well used and the best completed handover documentation. The PHHBs provided a successful handover option for patients with chronic NCDs in Mongolia, but their completeness needs improving. There is potential for global application.

Objectives1) To investigate patient and healthcare provider (HCP) knowledge, attitudes and barriers to handover and healthcare communication during inpatient care. 2) To explore potential interventions for improving the storage and transfer of healthcare information.DesignQualitative study comprising 41 semi-structured, individual interviews and a thematic analysis using the Framework Method with analyst triangulation.SettingThree public hospitals in Himachal Pradesh and Kerala, India.ParticipantsParticipants included 20 male (n=10) and female (n=10) patients with chronic non-communicable disease (NCD) and 21 male (n=15) and female (n=6) HCPs. Purposive sampling was used to identify patients with chronic NCDs (cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes or hypertension) and HCPs.ResultsPatient themes were (1) public healthcare service characteristics, (2) HCP to patient communication and (3) attitudes regarding medical information. HCP themes were (1) system factors, (2) information exchange practices and (3) quality improvement strategies. Both patients and HCPs recognised public healthcare constraints that increased pressure on hospitals and subsequently limited consultation times. Systemic issues reported by HCPs were a lack of formal handover systems, training and accessible hospital-based records. Healthcare management communication during admission was inconsistent and lacked patient-centredness, evidenced by varying reports of patient information received and some dissatisfaction with lifestyle advice. HCPs reported that the duty of writing discharge notes was passed from senior doctors to interns or nurses during busy periods. A nurse reported providing predominantly verbal discharge instructions to patients. Patient-held medical documents facilitated information exchange between HCPs, but doctors reported that they were not always transported. HCPs and patients expressed positive views towards the idea of introducing patient-held booklets to improve the organisation and transfer of medical documents.ConclusionsHandover and healthcare communication during chronic NCD inpatient care is currently suboptimal. Structured information exchange systems and HCP training are required to improve continuity and safety of care during critical transitions such as referral and discharge. Our findings suggest that patient-held booklets may also assist in enhancing handover and patient-centred practices.

Objective To review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar. Results Six observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients’ experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition. Conclusion Limited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019139365.