Primary Healthcare Nurses’ Views on Digital Healthcare Communication and Continuity of Care: A Deductive and Inductive Content Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Primary healthcare in the Western world faces significant functional challenges, resulting in the implementation of digital communication tools. Nurses are key professionals in primary care and focusing on the impact of digital communication and continuity of care in primary care organisations is important. This qualitative descriptive study explores digital communication and continuity of care from primary healthcare nurses’ perspective. Data from individual semi-structured interviews with 12 nurses were collected; deductive and inductive content analyses were performed. Three descriptive categories emerged from the deductive (digital communication as interpersonal, information, and management continuities) and inductive (‘digital care does not suit everyone’, ‘new technology is contextually intertwined with daily work’, and ‘patient-positive aspects of digital information’) phases. Additionally, a structural risk of obscuration of patients’ needs by the contextual conditions emerged. To ensure digital communication-aligned continuity of care, compatible information technology systems should be developed. Allowing nurses to provide high-quality care based on their own values would enhance person-centred patient care.

Related collections

Most cited references 43

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.