Continuity of care after percutaneous coronary intervention: The patient's perspective across secondary and primary care settings.
Irene Valaker, Tone M Norekvål, Maj-Britt Råholm and 3 others
PMID 28111970WHAT IT FOUND
PCI patients were satisfied with hospital treatment but described fragmented discharge, unclear responsibility, little practical guidance for home, and poor GP and rehabilitation follow-up.
The paper does not test whether nurse-led changes improve continuity.
Key findings
01The main theme was an unplanned patient journey across care boundaries, with unclear responsibility between providers.
02Patients were satisfied with the technical PCI treatment but found early recovery information inadequate for daily living.
03Some patients had no arranged GP follow-up and were not informed about cardiac rehabilitation.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 22 patients from one hospital in Norway, so experiences may not transfer to other settings. It excluded patients with previous cardiac surgery, non-Norwegian speakers, and people unable to consent, so it may miss patients with more complex care pathways. Interviews happened 6 to 8 weeks after PCI, so recall of discharge details may be incomplete. The study reports patient experiences, not clinical outcomes, so it cannot show that any service change works.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by Sogn og Fjordane University College, Norway.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that nurse-led discharge planning improves continuity. It is a qualitative study of 22 patients' experiences, so it can describe gaps but cannot test whether any change works.