BACKGROUND: New care modes in primary care may affect patients' experienced continuity of care. AIM: To analyse whether experienced continuity for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) changes after different care modes are introduced, and to analyse the relationship between continuity of care and patients' quality of life. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up in general practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: A total of 180 patients with COPD were randomly assigned to three different care modes: self-management, regular monitoring by a practice nurse, and care provided by the GP at the patient's own initiative (usual care). Experienced continuity of care as personal continuity (proportion of visits with patient's own GP) and team continuity (continuity by the primary healthcare team) was measured using a self-administered patient questionnaire. Quality of life was measured using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the final sample (n = 148), those patients receiving usual care experienced the highest personal continuity, although the chance of not contacting any care provider was also highest in this group (29% versus 2% receiving self-management, and 5% receiving regular monitoring). There were no differences in experienced team continuity in the three care modes. No relationship was found between continuity and changes in quality of life. CONCLUSION: Although personal continuity decreases when new care modes are introduced, no evidence that this affects patients' experienced team continuity or patients' quality of life was found. Patients still experienced smooth, ongoing care, and considered care to be connected. Overall, no evidence was found indicating that the introduction of new care modes in primary care for patients with COPD should be discouraged.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: New care modes in primary care may affect patients' experienced continuity of care. AIM: To analyse whether experienced continuity for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) changes after different care modes are introduced, and to analyse the relationship between continuity of care and patients' quality of life. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up in general practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: A total of 180 patients with COPD were randomly assigned to three different care modes: self-management, regular monitoring by a practice nurse, and care provided by the GP at the patient's own initiative (usual care). Experienced continuity of care as personal continuity (proportion of visits with patient's own GP) and team continuity (continuity by the primary healthcare team) was measured using a self-administered patient questionnaire. Quality of life was measured using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the final sample (n = 148), those patients receiving usual care experienced the highest personal continuity, although the chance of not contacting any care provider was also highest in this group (29% versus 2% receiving self-management, and 5% receiving regular monitoring). There were no differences in experienced team continuity in the three care modes. No relationship was found between continuity and changes in quality of life. CONCLUSION: Although personal continuity decreases when new care modes are introduced, no evidence that this affects patients' experienced team continuity or patients' quality of life was found. Patients still experienced smooth, ongoing care, and considered care to be connected. Overall, no evidence was found indicating that the introduction of new care modes in primary care for patients with COPD should be discouraged.
Authors: Carol E Adair; Gerald M McDougall; Craig R Mitton; Anthony S Joyce; T Cameron Wild; Alan Gordon; Norman Costigan; Laura Kowalsky; Gloria Pasmeny; Anora Beckie Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: H J Schünemann; R Goldstein; M J Mador; D McKim; E Stahl; M Puhan; L E Griffith; B Grant; P Austin; R Collins; G H Guyatt Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Denis Pereira Gray; Philip Evans; Kieran Sweeney; Pamela Lings; David Seamark; Clare Seamark; Michael Dixon; Nicholas Bradley Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 18.000
Authors: Annemarie A Uijen; Henk J Schers; François G Schellevis; Henk G A Mokkink; Chris van Weel; Wil Jhm van den Bosch Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kyoung Hee Cho; Young Sam Kim; Chung Mo Nam; Tae Hyun Kim; Sun Jung Kim; Kyu-Tae Han; Eun-Cheol Park Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Saskia W M Weldam; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Rogier L Decates; Marieke J Schuurmans Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Kyoung Hee Cho; Eun-Cheol Park; Young Soon Nam; Seon-Heui Lee; Chung Mo Nam; Sang Gyu Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 3.240