全科护理和二级护理的连续性:回顾性队列研究。

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0579
Thomas Beaney, Thomas Woodcock, Paul Aylin, Azeem Majeed, Jonathan Clarke
{"title":"全科护理和二级护理的连续性:回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Thomas Beaney, Thomas Woodcock, Paul Aylin, Azeem Majeed, Jonathan Clarke","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Better continuity in primary and secondary care is linked to improved health outcomes, but it is unclear whether the sociodemographic determinants of continuity are the same in both settings and whether continuity measures in each setting are associated.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the determinants of relational continuity in general practice (GP) and fragmented outpatient specialty care in people with clusters of Multiple Long-Term Conditions (LTCs) and the association between continuity in each setting.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A cohort of patients ≥18 years registered to general practices in England throughout 2019, and with linked hospital outpatient records. Patients with two or more of 212 LTCs and with at least three GP and three outpatient appointments were included.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The Continuity of Care Index (COCI) was calculated separately for visits to the same i) GP and ii) outpatient specialty and we calculated associations of sociodemographic factors and number of LTCs with COCI scores. We also assessed the association between indices in each setting using univariable and multivariable fractional logit regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,135,903 patients, 56.2% were ≥60 years. Age was the strongest determinant of continuity in GP, whereas number of LTCs was the strongest determinant in secondary care. Although statistically significant (p<0.001) the relationship between the COCI in GP and outpatients was clinically insignificant in both univariable and multivariable models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found a lack of strong association between continuity of care in GP and outpatient settings. This suggests that fragmented hospital care is not mitigated by increased continuity in GP.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuity of care in general practice and secondary care: retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Beaney, Thomas Woodcock, Paul Aylin, Azeem Majeed, Jonathan Clarke\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Better continuity in primary and secondary care is linked to improved health outcomes, but it is unclear whether the sociodemographic determinants of continuity are the same in both settings and whether continuity measures in each setting are associated.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the determinants of relational continuity in general practice (GP) and fragmented outpatient specialty care in people with clusters of Multiple Long-Term Conditions (LTCs) and the association between continuity in each setting.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A cohort of patients ≥18 years registered to general practices in England throughout 2019, and with linked hospital outpatient records. Patients with two or more of 212 LTCs and with at least three GP and three outpatient appointments were included.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The Continuity of Care Index (COCI) was calculated separately for visits to the same i) GP and ii) outpatient specialty and we calculated associations of sociodemographic factors and number of LTCs with COCI scores. We also assessed the association between indices in each setting using univariable and multivariable fractional logit regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,135,903 patients, 56.2% were ≥60 years. Age was the strongest determinant of continuity in GP, whereas number of LTCs was the strongest determinant in secondary care. Although statistically significant (p<0.001) the relationship between the COCI in GP and outpatients was clinically insignificant in both univariable and multivariable models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found a lack of strong association between continuity of care in GP and outpatient settings. This suggests that fragmented hospital care is not mitigated by increased continuity in GP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0579\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0579","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:研究具有多种长期病症(LTC)的人群在全科医生(GP)和零散门诊专科护理中关系连续性的决定因素,以及每种环境中连续性之间的关联:2019年全年在英格兰全科诊所登记的≥18岁患者队列,并与医院门诊记录关联。研究对象包括患有两种或两种以上 212 种长期慢性病、至少预约过三次全科医生和三次门诊的患者:我们计算了社会人口学因素和 LTCs 数量与 COCI 分数之间的关联。我们还使用单变量和多变量分数对数回归法评估了每种情况下指数之间的关联:在 1 135 903 名患者中,56.2% 的患者年龄≥60 岁。在全科医生中,年龄是决定连续性的最主要因素,而在二级医疗机构中,长寿老人的数量是决定连续性的最主要因素。尽管在统计学上有意义(p 结论:我们发现,全科医生和门诊环境中的连续性护理之间缺乏紧密联系。这表明,分散的医院护理并不会因为全科医生护理连续性的提高而得到缓解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Continuity of care in general practice and secondary care: retrospective cohort study.

Background: Better continuity in primary and secondary care is linked to improved health outcomes, but it is unclear whether the sociodemographic determinants of continuity are the same in both settings and whether continuity measures in each setting are associated.

Aim: To examine the determinants of relational continuity in general practice (GP) and fragmented outpatient specialty care in people with clusters of Multiple Long-Term Conditions (LTCs) and the association between continuity in each setting.

Design and setting: A cohort of patients ≥18 years registered to general practices in England throughout 2019, and with linked hospital outpatient records. Patients with two or more of 212 LTCs and with at least three GP and three outpatient appointments were included.

Method: The Continuity of Care Index (COCI) was calculated separately for visits to the same i) GP and ii) outpatient specialty and we calculated associations of sociodemographic factors and number of LTCs with COCI scores. We also assessed the association between indices in each setting using univariable and multivariable fractional logit regression.

Results: Of 1,135,903 patients, 56.2% were ≥60 years. Age was the strongest determinant of continuity in GP, whereas number of LTCs was the strongest determinant in secondary care. Although statistically significant (p<0.001) the relationship between the COCI in GP and outpatients was clinically insignificant in both univariable and multivariable models.

Conclusion: We found a lack of strong association between continuity of care in GP and outpatient settings. This suggests that fragmented hospital care is not mitigated by increased continuity in GP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Variation in prescription duration for long term conditions: a cohort study in English NHS primary care using OpenPrescribing. Discussions about physical activity in general practice: analysis of video-recorded consultations. Impact of the clinically oriented roles of a general practice receptionist: a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Paramedic or GP consultations in primary care: prospective study comparing costs and outcomes. Exploring rural Scottish GPs' migration decisions: a secondary qualitative analysis considering burnout.
×
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