Connecting the Dots in Parkinson’s care: A Rapid Review and Qualitative Synthesis of Multidisciplinary Patient Passports for Parkinson’s disease.

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Background Multidisciplinary patient passports are personalized documents designed to facilitate communication and continuity of care across various healthcare settings. Currently, there are no syntheses with a comprehensive assessment of the development, implementation, and effectiveness of all types of multidisciplinary patient passports across various healthcare settings. The objective of this study is to synthesize existing evidence on the development, implementation, and effectiveness of multidisciplinary patient passports in chronic disease management, and to identify key considerations to inform the development of a Parkinson’s disease (PD) multidisciplinary patient passport. Methods We conducted a rapid review of the literature to identify studies evaluating multidisciplinary patient passports across chronic care settings. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched from inception to 2025 using keywords related to patient passports and patient‑held records. Studies were eligible if they examined the development, implementation, or use of multidisciplinary patient passports in chronic disease populations. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data. An inductive thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings across studies. Results Forty‑two studies published between 1997 and 2025 were included. Most studies originated from the United Kingdom, with additional representation from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Patient passports were used across diverse chronic conditions, including cancer survivorship, dementia, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, paediatrics, and palliative care. Formats included paper‑based, electronic, and hybrid tools. Across studies, patient passports were perceived to improve communication, care coordination, patient knowledge, and empowerment. Providers reported reduced duplication of information and enhanced continuity of care. Sustained use varied and depended on provider engagement and system integration. Barriers included inconsistent uptake, workflow disruption, unclear accountability, and digital literacy challenges. Facilitators of Success included co‑design with patients and providers, concise and portable design, and reinforcement by healthcare teams. No evaluated multidisciplinary patient passport specific to Parkinson’s disease was identified. Conclusion Multidisciplinary patient passports are generally feasible and acceptable tools that support communication and continuity of care in chronic disease management. Findings highlight key design and implementation principles that can inform the development of a PD specific multidisciplinary patient passport, with family physicians well positioned to anchor its use within coordinated primary care led models.

Related topics