Delivering relational continuity of care in UK general practice: a scoping review.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-07-29 Print Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0041
Miglena N Fox, Jon M Dickson, Patrick Burch, Daniel Hind, Olivia Hawksworth
{"title":"Delivering relational continuity of care in UK general practice: a scoping review.","authors":"Miglena N Fox, Jon M Dickson, Patrick Burch, Daniel Hind, Olivia Hawksworth","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Relational continuity of care (patients seeing the same GP) is associated with better outcomes for patients, but it has been declining in general practice in the UK.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To understand what interventions have been tried to improve relational continuity of care in general practice in the UK.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Scoping review of articles on UK General Practice and written in English.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2002 to the present day was undertaken. Sources of grey literature were also searched. Studies that detailed service-level methods of achieving relational continuity of care with a GP in the UK were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were described narratively in relation to the elements listed in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). A logic model describing the rationale behind interventions was constructed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen unique interventions were identified. The interventions used a wide variety of strategies to try to improve relational continuity. This included personal lists, amended booking processes, regular reviews, digital technology, facilitated follow-ups, altered appointment times, and use of acute hubs. Twelve of the interventions targeted specific patient groups for increased continuity while others focused on increasing continuity for all patients. Changes in continuity levels were measured inconsistently using several different methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Several different strategies have been used in UK general practices in an attempt to improve relational continuity of care. While there is a similar underlying logic to these interventions, their scope, aims, and methods vary considerably. Furthermore, owing to a weak evidence base, comparing their efficacy remains challenging.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11300996/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Relational continuity of care (patients seeing the same GP) is associated with better outcomes for patients, but it has been declining in general practice in the UK.

Aim: To understand what interventions have been tried to improve relational continuity of care in general practice in the UK.

Design & setting: Scoping review of articles on UK General Practice and written in English.

Method: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2002 to the present day was undertaken. Sources of grey literature were also searched. Studies that detailed service-level methods of achieving relational continuity of care with a GP in the UK were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were described narratively in relation to the elements listed in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). A logic model describing the rationale behind interventions was constructed.

Results: Seventeen unique interventions were identified. The interventions used a wide variety of strategies to try to improve relational continuity. This included personal lists, amended booking processes, regular reviews, digital technology, facilitated follow-ups, altered appointment times, and use of acute hubs. Twelve of the interventions targeted specific patient groups for increased continuity while others focused on increasing continuity for all patients. Changes in continuity levels were measured inconsistently using several different methods.

Conclusion: Several different strategies have been used in UK general practices in an attempt to improve relational continuity of care. While there is a similar underlying logic to these interventions, their scope, aims, and methods vary considerably. Furthermore, owing to a weak evidence base, comparing their efficacy remains challenging.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在英国全科医疗中提供关系性持续护理:范围界定审查。
背景:目的:了解为改善英国全科医疗的连续性而采取的干预措施:方法:对 2002 年至今的 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Scopus 进行电子检索。此外,还搜索了灰色文献。符合纳入条件的研究详细介绍了在英国实现与全科医生持续护理关系的服务层面方法。根据 "干预措施描述与复制模板"(TIDieR)中列出的要素,对干预措施进行了叙述性描述。构建了一个逻辑模型,描述干预措施背后的原理:结果:确定了 17 项独特的干预措施。这些干预措施采用了多种策略来改善关系的连续性。其中包括个人名单、修改预约流程、定期复查、数字技术、协助随访、改变预约时间以及使用急诊中心。其中 12 项干预措施针对特定患者群体以提高连续性,而其他干预措施则侧重于提高所有患者的连续性。使用几种不同的方法衡量连续性水平的变化并不一致:结论:英国的全科医生采用了几种不同的策略,试图改善医疗服务的连续性。虽然这些干预措施的基本逻辑相似,但其范围、目的和方法却大相径庭。此外,由于证据基础薄弱,对其效果进行比较仍具有挑战性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1