Continuity in different care modes and its relationship to quality of life: a randomised controlled trial in patients with COPD.

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.

Measuring continuity of care: psychometric properties of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ) was developed. It aims to measure continuity of care from the patient perspective across primary and secondary care settings. Initial pilot testing proved promising. AIM: To further examine the validity, discriminative ability, and reliability of the NCQ. DESIGN: A prospective psychometric instrument validation study in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands. METHOD: The NCQ was administered to patients with a chronic disease recruited from general practice (n = 145) and hospital outpatient departments (n = 123) (response rate 76%). A principal component analysis was performed to confirm three subscales that had been found previously. Construct validity was tested by correlating the NCQ score to scores of other scales measuring quality of care, continuity, trust, and satisfaction. Discriminative ability was tested by investigating differences in continuity subscores of different subgroups. Test-retest reliability was analysed in 172 patients. RESULTS: Principal factor analysis confirmed the previously found three continuity subscales - personal continuity, care provider knows me; personal continuity, care provider shows commitment; and team/cross-boundary continuity. Construct validity was demonstrated through expected correlations with other variables and discriminative ability through expected differences in continuity subscores of different subgroups. Test-retest reliability was high (the intraclass correlation coefficient varied between 0.71 and 0.82). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the validity, discriminative ability, and reliability of the NCQ. The NCQ can be of value to identify problems in continuity of care.