Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients.

BACKGROUND: Higher continuity of GP care (CGPC), that is, consulting the same doctor consistently, can improve doctor-patient relationships and increase quality of care; however, its effects on patients with dementia are mostly unknown. AIM: To estimate the associations between CGPC and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and with the incidence of adverse health outcomes (AHOs) in patients with dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study with 1 year of follow-up anonymised medical records from 9324 patients with dementia, aged ≥65 years living in England in 2016. METHOD: CGPC measures include the Usual Provider of Care (UPC), Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care (BB), and Sequential Continuity (SECON) indices. Regression models estimated associations with PIPs and survival analysis with incidence of AHOs during the follow-up adjusted for age, sex, deprivation level, 14 comorbidities, and frailty. RESULTS: The highest quartile (HQ) of UPC (highest continuity) had 34.8% less risk of delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.84), 57.9% less risk of incontinence (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.58), and 9.7% less risk of emergency admissions to hospital (OR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.99) compared with the lowest quartile. Polypharmacy and PIP were identified in 81.6% (n = 7612) and 75.4% (n = 7027) of patients, respectively. The HQ had fewer prescribed medications (HQ: mean 8.5, lowest quartile (LQ): mean 9.7, P<0.01) and had fewer PIPs (HQ: mean 2.1, LQ: mean 2.5, P<0.01), including fewer loop diuretics in patients with incontinence, drugs that can cause constipation, and benzodiazepines with high fall risk. The BB and SECON measures produced similar findings. CONCLUSION: Higher CGPC for patients with dementia was associated with safer prescribing and lower rates of major adverse events. Increasing continuity of care for patients with dementia may help improve treatment and outcomes.

Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study.

BACKGROUND: In order to integrate genomic medicine into routine patient care and stratify personal risk, it is increasingly important to record family history (FH) information in general/family practice records. This is true for classic genetic disease as well as multifactorial conditions. Research suggests that FH recording is currently inadequate. OBJECTIVES: To provide an up-to-date analysis of the frequency, quality, and accuracy of FH recording in UK general/family practice. METHODS: An exploratory study, based at St Leonard's Practice, Exeter-a suburban UK general/family practice. Selected adult patients registered for over 1 year were contacted by post and asked to complete a written FH questionnaire. The reported information was compared with the patients' electronic medical record (EMR). Each EMR was assessed for its frequency (how often information was recorded), quality (the level of detail included), and accuracy (how closely the information matched the patient report) of FH recording. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-one patients were approached, 65 (27.0%) responded and 62 (25.7%) were eligible to participate. Forty-three (69.4%) EMRs contained FH information. The most commonly recorded conditions were bowel cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The mean quality score was 3.64 (out of 5). There was little negative recording. 83.2% of patient-reported FH information was inaccurately recorded or missing from the EMRs. CONCLUSION: FH information in general/family practice records should be better prepared for the genomic era. Whilst some conditions are well recorded, there is a need for more frequent, higher quality recording with greater accuracy, especially for multifactorial conditions.

Taking a family history (FH) of disease can be a quick, cost-effective way of gathering genetic information. Genetic medicine is beginning to transform healthcare, so it is important to gather FH information. General practitioners, also known as family physicians, are in the best position to gather FH information as they regularly see multiple family members. Research suggests that FH recording in general/family practice is not yet good enough. This study aimed to find the areas for improvement by measuring the frequency, quality, and accuracy of FH recording. This study looked at 62 patients' records in one UK general practice. Patients were asked to give up-to-date FH information in a questionnaire which was compared with their record. The study found that some conditions were often recorded. The most commonly recorded condition was heart disease. The conditions that are more likely to reflect the family environment, such as depression, were less frequently recorded. Recordings often included the side of the family the condition affected. Recordings rarely included the age that the relative was affected. The information was not very accurate, as most of the information from patient questionnaires was missing from the records. Research should now focus on how to improve recording.

A method for measuring continuity of care in day-to-day general practice: a quantitative analysis of appointment data.

BACKGROUND: Despite patient preference and many known benefits, continuity of care is in decline in general practice. The most common method of measuring continuity is the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index. This requires a number of appointments per patient and a relatively long timeframe for accuracy, reducing its applicability for day-to-day performance management. AIM: To describe the St Leonard's Index of Continuity of Care (SLICC) for measuring GP continuity regularly, and demonstrate how it has been used in service in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of appointment audit data from 2016-2017 in a general practice with 8823-9409 patients and seven part-time partners, in Exeter, UK. METHOD: The percentage of face-to-face appointments for patients on each doctor's list, with the patient's personal doctor (the SLICC), was calculated monthly. The SLICC for different demographic groupings of patients (for example, sex and frequency of attendance) was compared. The UPC index over the 2 years was also calculated, allowing comparisons between indices. RESULTS: In the 2-year study period, there were 35 622 GP face-to-face appointments; 1.96 per patient per year. Overall, 51.7% (95% confidence interval = 51.2 to 52.2) of GP appointments were with the patients' personal doctor. Patients aged ≥65 years had a higher level of continuity with 64.9% of appointments being with their personal doctor. The mean whole-practice UPC score was 0.61 (standard deviation 0.23), with 'usual provider' being the personal GP for 52.8% and a trainee or locum for 8.1% of patients. CONCLUSION: This method could provide working GPs with a simple way to track continuity of care and inform practice management and decision making.

Continuity of care with doctors-a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Continuity of care is a long-standing feature of healthcare, especially of general practice. It is associated with increased patient satisfaction, increased take-up of health promotion, greater adherence to medical advice and decreased use of hospital services. This review aims to examine whether there is a relationship between the receipt of continuity of doctor care and mortality. DESIGN: Systematic review without meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Web of Science, from 1996 to 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Peer-reviewed primary research articles, published in English which reported measured continuity of care received by patients from any kind of doctor, in any setting, in any country, related to measured mortality of those patients. RESULTS: Of the 726 articles identified in searches, 22 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The studies were all cohort or cross-sectional and most adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors. These studies came from nine countries with very different cultures and health systems. We found such heterogeneity of continuity and mortality measurement methods and time frames that it was not possible to combine the results of studies. However, 18 (81.8%) high-quality studies reported statistically significant reductions in mortality, with increased continuity of care. 16 of these were with all-cause mortality. Three others showed no association and one demonstrated mixed results. These significant protective effects occurred with both generalist and specialist doctors. CONCLUSIONS: This first systematic review reveals that increased continuity of care by doctors is associated with lower mortality rates. Although all the evidence is observational, patients across cultural boundaries appear to benefit from continuity of care with both generalist and specialist doctors. Many of these articles called for continuity to be given a higher priority in healthcare planning. Despite substantial, successive, technical advances in medicine, interpersonal factors remain important. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016042091.