Barriers to Transition

  • Wendy F. BowerEmail author
  • D. Michael Whishaw
  • Caroline Dowling
  • Yves Heloury


Children with complex health problems require multi-disciplinary care. Using the case of congenital urological disorders as an example, children and adolescents with urinary tract involvement require care by multidisciplinary teams. At some point as adolescents or young adults they are moved to an adult service. This is a transfer from a multiple intervention health model to a single clinician environment during a time coinciding with other major life changing events.

Failed transition from pediatric to adult care negatively affects health outcomes, as it is associated with non-adherence to treatment recommendations and increased hospital admissions. Surrogate markers of the efficacy of transition include the proportion of patients lost to follow-up, inappropriate or preventable hospital admissions and medication or self-management non-adherence rates.

This chapter outlines the issues facing the pediatric care team, the adult services receiving the young person and the adolescent and their family during the transition of care. The aim is to identify current or potential roadblocks that limit healthcare systems successfully addressing the medical, psychosocial, educational and vocational needs of adolescents who live with their lifelong condition. Instead of a process focused on service transition and transfer, the intention is to support a holistic concept of moving young people with congenital disorders into adulthood and independence.


Multidisciplinary teams Adult service Adult urology team Sexual issues Family issues Parental rights 


  1. 1.
    Goodhand J, Hedin CR, Croft NM, et al. Adolescents with IBD: the importance of structured transition care. J Crohns Colitis. 2011;5(6):509–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wysocki T, et al. Diabetes mellitus in the transition to adulthood: adjustment, self-care, and health status. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1992;13(3):194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwartz LA, et al. Stakeholder validation of a model of readiness for transition to adult care. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(10):939–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bower WF, Christie D, DeGennaro M, Latthe P, Raes A, Romao RL, et al. The transition of young adults with lifelong urological needs from pediatric to adult services: an International Children’s Continence Society position statement. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):811–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bong GW, Rovner ES. Sexual health in adult men with spina bifida. Sci World J. 2007;7:1466–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kovacs AH, McCrindle BW. So hard to say goodbye: transition from paediatric to adult cardiology care. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11(1):51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy F. Bower
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • D. Michael Whishaw
    • 1
    • 3
  • Caroline Dowling
    • 4
  • Yves Heloury
    • 5
  1. 1.Continence Service, Department of Medicine and Community CareRoyal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty Medicine, Dentistry and Health SciencesUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Department of UrologyRoyal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Department of UrologyEastern HealthBox HillAustralia
  5. 5.Department of UrologyRoyal Children’s HospitalParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations