IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i19-20p3386-3399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up calls: A mixed study systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Cindy E. Woods
  • Rikki Jones
  • Eilish O’Shea
  • Elizabeth Grist
  • John Wiggers
  • Kim Usher

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore the quantitative and qualitative literature on the impact of nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up (TFU) call interventions on patient outcomes. Background Adverse patient outcomes such as postdischarge problems, premature contact with health systems, inability to self‐manage conditions and hospital readmissions all have an impact on the health and well‐being, and satisfaction of patients as well as a financial impact on healthcare systems. Design A mixed‐study systematic review. Review methods A systematic search of CINAHL, Ebsco, PubMed, Quest and Cinch‐Health databases was undertaken using the key terms “nurs*,” “nurse‐led,” “nurse initiated,” “discharge,” “hospital,” “telephone,” “follow‐up” and “telephone follow‐up” to identify relevant original peer‐reviewed studies published between 2010–2016. Ten articles were selected for inclusion. The selected papers were critically appraised. A sequential explanatory approach with a convergent synthesis was used to report findings following PRISMA guidelines. Results The findings demonstrate that nurse‐led TFU interventions have the potential to improve patient outcomes. The studies suggest patient satisfaction with TFU is one of the strongest positive outcomes from the interventions. However, the results do not support improvement in patient readmission or mortality. Conclusions Of the 10 studies reviewed, only two were methodologically strong limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from the current research on this topic. Telephone follow‐up interventions improve patient satisfaction and have the potential to meet patient information and communication needs, improve self‐management and follow‐up appointment attendance and reduce postdischarge problems. Further research is required to explore patients’ perceptions of the most useful content of TFU calls, the efficacy of TFU calls and nurses’ perceptions and experiences of conducting TFU interventions. Relevance to clinical practice When conducted by a nurse, these interventions have the potential to enhance postdischarge care to patients and meet care needs. Patients perceive TFU as acceptable and are satisfied with this form of postdischarge care.

Suggested Citation

  • Cindy E. Woods & Rikki Jones & Eilish O’Shea & Elizabeth Grist & John Wiggers & Kim Usher, 2019. "Nurse‐led postdischarge telephone follow‐up calls: A mixed study systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(19-20), pages 3386-3399, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:19-20:p:3386-3399
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14951
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Hannan, 2013. "APN telephone follow up to low‐income first time mothers," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1-2), pages 262-270, January.
    2. Martina Cusack & Claire Taylor, 2010. "A literature review of the potential of telephone follow‐up in colorectal cancer," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(17‐18), pages 2394-2405, September.
    3. Marco Clari & Simona Frigerio & Fulvio Ricceri & Andrea Pici & Rosaria Alvaro & Valerio Dimonte, 2015. "Follow‐up telephone calls to patients discharged after undergoing orthopaedic surgery: double‐blind, randomised controlled trial of efficacy," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2736-2744, October.
    4. Jun‐E Zhang & Frances KY Wong & Li M You & Mei C Zheng, 2012. "A qualitative study exploring the nurse telephone follow‐up of patients returning home with a colostomy," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(9‐10), pages 1407-1415, May.
    5. Kinta Beaver & Susan Williamson & Karen Chalmers, 2010. "Telephone follow‐up after treatment for breast cancer: views and experiences of patients and specialist breast care nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2916-2924, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Villa & Silvia Villa & Simona Vimercati & Mara Andreossi & Fabrizia Mauri & Daniela Ferlicca & Roberto Rona & Giuseppe Foti & Alberto Lucchini, 2021. "Implementation of a Follow-Up Program for Intensive Care Unit Survivors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Hope Emonena & Omorogieva Ojo, 2022. "The Efficacy of Tele-Monitoring in Maintaining Glycated Haemoglobin Levels in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azadé Azad & Elisabet Sernbo & Veronica Svärd & Lisa Holmlund & Elisabeth Björk Brämberg, 2021. "Conducting In-Depth Interviews via Mobile Phone with Persons with Common Mental Disorders and Multimorbidity: The Challenges and Advantages as Experienced by Participants and Researchers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Sarah J. Liptrott & Karina Lovell & Penny Bee, 2020. "Influence of Needs and Experiences of Haemato-Oncology Patients on Acceptability of a Telephone Intervention for Support and Symptom Management: A Qualitative Study," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 29(8), pages 627-637, November.
    3. Ann‐Caroline Johansson & Eva Brink & Christina Cliffordson & Malin Axelsson, 2018. "The function of fatigue and illness perceptions as mediators between self‐efficacy and health‐related quality of life during the first year after surgery in persons treated for colorectal cancer," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1537-1548, April.
    4. Andrea Kobleder & Hanna Mayer & Beate Senn, 2017. "‘Feeling someone is there for you’ – experiences of women with vulvar neoplasia with care delivered by an Advanced Practice Nurse," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3-4), pages 456-465, February.
    5. Miia Marika Jansson & Marja Harjumaa & Ari‐Pekka Puhto & Minna Pikkarainen, 2019. "Healthcare professionals’ proposed eHealth needs in elective primary fast‐track hip and knee arthroplasty journey: A qualitative interview study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(23-24), pages 4434-4446, December.
    6. Semra Atasayar & Sevil Guler Demir, 2019. "Determination of the Problems Experienced by Patients Post-Thyroidectomy," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 28(5), pages 615-635, June.
    7. Kirsten Szöts & Hanne Konradsen & Søren Solgaard & Stina Bogø & Birte Østergaard, 2015. "Nurse‐led telephone follow‐up after total knee arthroplasty – content and the patients’ views," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2890-2899, October.
    8. Dawn Stacey & Gail Macartney & Meg Carley & Margaret B. Harrison & The Pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support Group (COSTaRS), 2013. "Development and Evaluation of Evidence-Informed Clinical Nursing Protocols for Remote Assessment, Triage and Support of Cancer Treatment-Induced Symptoms," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-11, February.
    9. Alex Gorod & Leonie Hallo & Susan Merchant, 2021. "Governance of patient‐centred care: A systemic approach to cancer treatment," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 257-271, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:19-20:p:3386-3399. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.