Continuity of care of Swiss residents aged 50+: a longitudinal study using claims data.

Anna Nicolet, Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux, Joël Wagner, Clémence Perraudin, Christophe Bagnoud, Joachim Marti
{"title":"Continuity of care of Swiss residents aged 50+: a longitudinal study using claims data.","authors":"Anna Nicolet,&nbsp;Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux,&nbsp;Joël Wagner,&nbsp;Clémence Perraudin,&nbsp;Christophe Bagnoud,&nbsp;Joachim Marti","doi":"10.1136/ihj-2021-000105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuity of care (COC) should be measured for healthcare quality monitoring and evaluation and is a key process indicator for integrated care. Measurement of COC using routinely collected data is widespread, but there is no consensus on which indicator to use and the relevant time horizon to apply. Information about COC is especially warranted in highly fragmented healthcare systems, such as in Switzerland. Our study aimed to compare COC measures in Swiss residents aged 50+ obtained with various indices and time horizons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using insurance claims data, we computed and compared several commonly used visit-based Continuity of Care Indices (COCIs): Bice-Boxerman Index, Usual Provider of Care, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, Modified, Modified Continuity Index and Modified Continuity Index, based on all doctor visits and on primary care (PC) visits only. Indices were computed over short (1 year) and medium (4 years) terms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean indices based on all visits varied between 0.51 and 0.77, while PC indices presented less variation with a median of 1.00 for all but one index. Indices focusing on a variety of individual providers decreased with time horizon, while indices focusing on the overall number of visits and providers showed the opposite trend. These findings suggest fundamental differences in the interpretation of COCIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Broad COC appeared moderately low in Switzerland, although comparable to other countries, and PC COC was close to one. The choice of indices and time horizon influenced their interpretation. Understanding these differences is key to select the appropriate index for the monitoring of COC.</p>","PeriodicalId":73393,"journal":{"name":"Integrated healthcare journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"e000105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10241030/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated healthcare journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ihj-2021-000105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Continuity of care (COC) should be measured for healthcare quality monitoring and evaluation and is a key process indicator for integrated care. Measurement of COC using routinely collected data is widespread, but there is no consensus on which indicator to use and the relevant time horizon to apply. Information about COC is especially warranted in highly fragmented healthcare systems, such as in Switzerland. Our study aimed to compare COC measures in Swiss residents aged 50+ obtained with various indices and time horizons.

Methods: Using insurance claims data, we computed and compared several commonly used visit-based Continuity of Care Indices (COCIs): Bice-Boxerman Index, Usual Provider of Care, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, Modified, Modified Continuity Index and Modified Continuity Index, based on all doctor visits and on primary care (PC) visits only. Indices were computed over short (1 year) and medium (4 years) terms.

Results: The mean indices based on all visits varied between 0.51 and 0.77, while PC indices presented less variation with a median of 1.00 for all but one index. Indices focusing on a variety of individual providers decreased with time horizon, while indices focusing on the overall number of visits and providers showed the opposite trend. These findings suggest fundamental differences in the interpretation of COCIs.

Conclusions: Broad COC appeared moderately low in Switzerland, although comparable to other countries, and PC COC was close to one. The choice of indices and time horizon influenced their interpretation. Understanding these differences is key to select the appropriate index for the monitoring of COC.

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
瑞士50岁以上居民护理的连续性:一项使用索赔数据的纵向研究。
背景:医疗保健质量监测和评价需要测量护理连续性(COC),它是综合护理的关键过程指标。使用常规收集的数据来测量COC是很普遍的,但是对于使用哪个指标和适用的相关时间范围没有达成共识。在瑞士等高度分散的卫生保健系统中,关于COC的信息尤其有必要。我们的研究旨在比较50岁以上瑞士居民的COC测量与各种指标和时间范围。方法:利用保险索赔数据,我们计算并比较了几种常用的基于就诊的连续性护理指数(COCIs): Bice-Boxerman指数、通常的护理提供者指数、Herfindahl-Hirschman指数、修改的、修改的连续性指数和修改的连续性指数,这些指数基于所有医生就诊和仅基于初级保健(PC)就诊。对短期(1年)和中期(4年)的指标进行计算。结果:所有访问的平均指数在0.51 ~ 0.77之间变化,而PC指数变化较小,除1个指数外,其余指数的中位数为1.00。随着时间的推移,关注各种个体服务提供者的指数呈下降趋势,而关注总访问量和服务提供者的指数呈相反趋势。这些发现表明,coci的解释存在根本差异。结论:瑞士的广义COC相对较低,但与其他国家相当,而PC COC接近于1。指数和时间范围的选择影响了它们的解释。了解这些差异是选择合适的COC监测指标的关键。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Systematic review of post-COVID-19 syndrome rehabilitation guidelines. Picturing aesthetic futures: values and visual tools within shared decision-making. Role of an Integrated Care System during COVID-19 and beyond: a qualitative study with recommendations to inform future development. Correction: Effectiveness of integrated care interventions for patients with long-term conditions: a review of systematic reviews Equity in healthcare access and service coverage for older people: a scoping review of the conceptual literature.
×
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