Cotterill Charlotte L, Booth Andrew, Dickson Jon M, Hind Daniel
The University of Sheffield, Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom
The University of Sheffield, Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
BJGP Open. 2025 Jan 2;8(4). doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0072. Print 2024 Dec.
In the UK, epilepsy care involves both specialists (for example, neurologists) and generalists (for example, GPs). Policymakers typically consider that epilepsy care should be integrated and involve both specialists and generalists. However, few understand exactly how patients view and compare specialist and generalist care.
To explore patient perspectives of specialist care and generalist care for epilepsy in a qualitative evidence synthesis.
DESIGN & SETTING: A systematic review of patient perspectives of epilepsy care. A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted using an identified framework.
Systematic searches in five databases retrieved 17 eligible studies. Data were extracted and synthesised using framework analysis informed by the 'United Model of Generalism'.
The following three themes were developed: 'Epilepsy care can be burdensome' (for example, through care fragmentation); 'Patients' experiences of care is that care is not always accessible' (for example, lack of a continuum between standardised and interpretive care); and 'How care could change for people with epilepsy' (for example, clinicians currently have insufficient time to deviate from protocol-driven care to address psychosocial needs). People with epilepsy frequently observe that generalists lack expertise in epilepsy management.
This synthesis of patient experiences indicates recommendations should focus on improving communication and integration between specialists and generalists for epilepsy care. Patient experiences indicate specialist care risks being burdensome and generalist knowledge insufficient, requiring enhanced primary care clinician skills and improved awareness of patient psychosocial needs. The findings argue in favour of healthcare policies, materials, and tools to continually support patient perspectives in developing epilepsy services.
在英国,癫痫护理涉及专科医生(如神经科医生)和全科医生(如普通全科医生)。政策制定者通常认为癫痫护理应实现整合,涵盖专科医生和全科医生。然而,很少有人确切了解患者如何看待和比较专科护理和全科护理。
在定性证据综合分析中探讨患者对癫痫专科护理和全科护理的看法。
对患者癫痫护理观点的系统评价。使用既定框架进行定性证据综合分析。
在五个数据库中进行系统检索,检索到17项符合条件的研究。采用基于“通用主义联合模型”的框架分析方法提取和综合数据。
形成了以下三个主题:“癫痫护理可能负担沉重”(例如,由于护理碎片化);“患者的护理体验是护理并非总是可及的”(例如,标准化护理和解释性护理之间缺乏连续性);以及“癫痫患者的护理如何改变”(例如,临床医生目前没有足够时间偏离方案驱动的护理以满足心理社会需求)。癫痫患者经常观察到全科医生在癫痫管理方面缺乏专业知识。
对患者体验的综合分析表明,建议应侧重于改善癫痫护理中专科医生和全科医生之间的沟通与整合。患者体验表明专科护理有负担沉重的风险,而全科医生知识不足,这需要提高基层医疗临床医生的技能,并增强对患者心理社会需求的认识。研究结果支持制定医疗政策、材料和工具,以便在制定癫痫服务时持续支持患者的观点。