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

Introduction The 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. Aim To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care. Design and setting Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Method Four electronic databases were searched from 1st January 2000 to 17th May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching 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 PRISMA guidance. Results Searches 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. Conclusion Although 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.

How do people in prison access palliative care? A scoping review of models of palliative care delivery for people in prison in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: An ageing prison population with complex health needs combined with punitive sentencing practices means palliative care for incarcerated individuals is increasingly important. However, there is limited evidence regarding the models of care delivery in high-income countries, and their associated challenges and benefits. AIM: To develop a typology of models of palliative care provision for incarcerated individuals, synthesise evidence of their outcomes and describe facilitators of and challenges in delivering different models of palliative and end-of-life care in prisons. DESIGN: Scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley, with narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered prospectively (reviewregistry1260). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Social Sciences Citation Index and grey literature were searched on 15th March 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: A total of 16,865 records were screened; 22 peer-reviewed articles and 18 grey literature sources met the inclusion criteria. Three models were identified: Embedded Hospice, Outsourcing Care and Community Collaboration. The Embedded Hospice model shows potential benefits for patients and prisons. Outsourcing Care may miss opportunities for comprehensive care. Collaborative Care relies on proactive prison-community relationships that could be formalised for improvement. Psychosocial and bereavement needs of those dying in prison and their caregivers lack sufficient documentation. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to evaluate prison hospice costs and examine how prison hospices impact compassionate release usage. Beyond the USA, policies might formalise care pathways and recognise best practices. Further investigation to address psychosocial needs of people in prison with life-limiting illnesses and post-death bereavement support is required.

Screening for thyroid disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An evaluation of current practice.

BACKGROUND: United Kingdom national guidelines do not recommend routine testing for thyroid disease in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, some studies suggest an increased risk of thyroid dysfunction in T2DM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current practice of screening for thyroid disease in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Patients with pre-existing T2DM (n = 339) were selected from records for routine glycated haemoglobin testing performed in December 2008. Using routinely collected primary/secondary care data from 2009 to 2017, we examined longitudinal thyroid-stimulating hormone and free thyroxine requests to determine the overall proportion of patients screened for thyroid dysfunction and the time interval between thyroid tests requested. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (9.7%) had pre-existing thyroid disease. Of the remaining 306 patients, 96.4% had at least one thyroid test during the follow-up period. When the time interval between tests was evaluated in these patients, there was a discrete peak in thyroid function test requests at 12 months, consistent with routine annual testing. Most requests (77%) originated from a general practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to current guidelines, we have provided evidence suggestive of regular screening for thyroid dysfunction in patients with T2DM, particularly in general practice. The appropriateness of this practice remains unclear, but may warrant further examination to assess the clinical benefits of screening, balanced against cost.