Active listing and more consultations in primary care are associated with shorter mean hospitalisation and interacting with psychiatric disorders when adjusting for multimorbidity, age and sex

A systematic review of risk stratification tools internationally used in primary care settings

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been developed as an approach to balance quality with increasing costs. This approach identifies sub-populations with comparable health risks, to tailor interventions for those that will benefit the most. Worldwide, the use of routine healthcare data extracted from electronic health registries for risk stratification approaches is increasing. Different risk stratification tools are used on different levels of the healthcare continuum. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to explore which tools are used in primary healthcare settings and assess their performance.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of studies applying risk stratification tools with health outcomes in primary care populations. Studies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published in English-language journals were included. Search engines were utilized with keywords, for example, "primary care," "risk stratification," and "model." Risk stratification tools were compared based on different measures: area under the curve (AUC) and C-statistics for dichotomous outcomes and R 2 for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

The search provided 4718 articles. Specific election criteria such as primary care populations, generic health utilization outcomes, and routinely collected data sources identified 61 articles, reporting on 31 different models. The three most frequently applied models were the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG, n = 23), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI, n = 19), and the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC, n = 7). Most AUC and C-statistic values were above 0.7, with ACG showing slightly improved scores compared with the CCI and HCC (typically between 0.6 and 0.7).

CONCLUSION

Based on statistical performance, the validity of the ACG was the highest, followed by the CCI and the HCC. The ACG also appeared to be the most flexible, with the use of different international coding systems and measuring a wider variety of health outcomes.

Relationship based care - how general practice developed and why it is undermined within contemporary healthcare systems

Objective: Investigating the state of generalism in medicine from the outlook of general practice. Line of argument: General practice developed when its pioneers, in continuing relationships, learnt to know their patients through the variety of medical situations. From the 50s, there is an increasing literature on the virtues and challenges of relationship based general practice, and register-based research indicate its benefits. Generalist perspectives and person-centeredness are implemented in specialised care and medical education but need to be complemented by an input from relationship based general practice. The politically defined aim of primary care is not to balance the draw-backs of specialisation, but to provide medicine at the primary care level. In Sweden, and increasingly even in traditional strongholds of general practice, team-based primary care is thought to respond to increasing demands, filtering out non- and minor disease through triage, practicing task distribution, and moving the GP to a secondary level working with the 'really sick', in all a decline in direct contact between patient and GP. Conclusions: When this happens, clinical medicine as a whole becomes drained of the practice of its human dimension. The lack of absolute proof of medical benefits cannot justify a disregard of the value of mutual knowledge and trust in the relationship, but still, in several countries, relationshipbased general practice will be hard to achieve for GPs planning their career. If the political winds should change, a sustaining profession of GPs preserving their relational ethos inside the team model, may be prepared to reform primary care. KEY POINTS Proclaiming both biomedical breadth and the trustful relationship between doctor and patient, as a specialty, general practice embodies medical generalism. A direct input from the patient's personal GP is necessary to make specialised care become more comprehensive and individualised. In reality, the team, practicing triage and task distribution, is increasingly replacing the doctor-patient relationship as working mode in primary care When the disease rather than the doctor-patient relationship, becomes the organising principle of primary care, medicine as a whole will be drained of the practice of its human dimension.