FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Understanding the contextual and causal factors shaping the work of receptionists in general practice: a realist review protocol

Por: Hoverd · E. · Brown · M. E. L. · Burford · B. · Chen · K.-L. · Erfani · G. · Hassan · S. · Montgomery · A. · Lievesley · M. · Norton · J. · Owen-Boukra · E. C. · Rapley · T. · Roberts · N. · Sajid · M. · Sowden · S. · Steven · A. · Vance · G. · Park · S.
Background

The work of receptionists in general practice is evolving rapidly and becoming more complex due to a number of changes within primary and community care services, such as increased digitalisation. In under-served areas, these changes have been further complicated by under-resourcing and workforce challenges around staff recruitment and retention. The National Health Service (NHS) 10-year health plan is set to accelerate further significant changes. There is limited understanding about how and why these changes and workforce challenges are impacting and will impact the future work of receptionists in general practice in under-served areas.

Methods and analysis

This realist review will build on an existing programme theory related to general practitioner workforce sustainability. The review will examine what works, for whom, how and under what circumstances for receptionist work in general practice, in under-served areas. For example, how influences such as the expectations of patients (in under-served communities), poor staffing or limited career progression. Key stakeholders, including public contributors and individuals from general practice settings, will inform the realist review.

The review will be conducted using existing secondary and grey literature sources. The search strategy comprises five electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection (SCIE, SSCI, AHCI) with a date limit of 2015 applied to the search. The review will follow Pawson’s five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The findings will be reported in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not needed for secondary analysis. The findings of this review will contribute to ongoing work as part of our ‘Workforce Voices’ programme of research. They will be disseminated to policymakers, commissioners, providers of health and social care and primary care and community healthcare teams through peer-reviewed publications, members of the public, conference presentations, social media and recommendations.

Implementing relational continuity in general practice--understanding who needs it, when, to what extent, how and why: a realist review protocol

Por: Tzortziou Brown · V. · Park · S. · Mahtani · K. R. · Taylor · S. · Owen-Boukra · E. C. · Taylor · J. · Richards · O. · Begum · S. · Wong · G.
Introduction

Relational continuity of care (RCC) refers to the sustained therapeutic relationship between a patient and a clinician, which fosters trust, enhances communication and facilitates the accumulation of knowledge about the patient. RCC is associated with enhanced patient outcomes, reduced hospital admissions, lower mortality rates, decreased healthcare costs and improved patient experience. Despite these benefits, reorganisations within the NHS and workforce challenges have led to an increased reliance on multidisciplinary and part-time working, resulting in fragmented care and a decline in RCC. Our study aims to explore who needs RCC, under what circumstances, to what extent and why, with the goal of informing optimal implementation strategies.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a realist review to develop an evidence-based programme theory explaining the mechanisms underlying RCC, the populations that benefit most, the contextual factors influencing RCC and effective care models. Following Pawson’s five iterative stages, we will: (1) Locate existing theories, (2) Search for relevant evidence, (3) Select appropriate articles, (4) Extract and organise data and (5) Synthesise findings to draw conclusions. A stakeholder advisory group, comprising policymakers, healthcare professionals, public contributors and patients, will be engaged throughout the process. We will adhere to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) for realist reviews to ensure methodological rigor.

Dissemination and ethics

Our findings will inform practical, evidence-based recommendations for optimising RCC within general practice. Outputs will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, plain English summaries, social media infographics, a short video and end-of-study events. Collaborations with stakeholders and public involvement will ensure both accessibility and impact. Ethical approval is not required for this review.

❌