The Impact of GP-Centered Healthcare

Recovery environments in places of daily living: a scoping review and conceptual analysis

BACKGROUND

Owing to advances in medical technology and the promotion of at-home medical care, patients are more frequently being treated in their places of daily living after discharge from acute care hospitals. As medical care and lifestyle are closely linked, the quality of life of the patient and their families therefore depends on the adequate preparation of the recovery environment. Hence, modifying this environment to ensure that the patient's lifestyle and medical care are complementary is often vital. This study aimed to clarify the concept of recovery environments in places of daily living.

METHODS

The literature search and selection of articles were based on a scoping review conducted in Scopus and PubMed, while data extraction and analysis were based on conceptual analysis. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our analysis of these articles allowed us to classify four types of recovery environments in places of daily living: physical environments appropriate to the health status of the recovering patient, collaborative environments in which intra-family roles are empowered, community environments in which recovering patients are accepted, and service environments in which the required services can be accessed. We also noted the main roles of medical professionals for building relationships with patients: providing decision-making support in places of daily living, creating an environment that empowers patients and their families, and modifying the service environment.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients, the main aims of recovery environments in places of daily living are to make them physically comfortable, maintain their identity, and improve their quality of life. Although this study is only a first step towards conceptualizing recovery environments in places of daily living and the final results are tentative, we are nonetheless confident that it will be important for advancing the field of home healthcare research.

Toward a universal definition of provider-patient attachment in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To explore definitions of provider-patient attachment in primary care (PC) and help inform a universal definition of provider-patient attachment.

DATA SOURCES

Comprehensive searches were conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycInfo (Ovid), Social Sciences Abstracts (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar, and ResearchGate.

STUDY SELECTION

A scoping review was conducted. Articles focusing on PC setting, provider-patient attachment, and attachment approaches (enrolment, rostering, registration, empanelment) were included. All articles were from English-language publications and were available in full text in or after 2005. Of the 5955 unique titles, 97 peer-reviewed articles and 45 gray literature sources were included.

SYNTHESIS

The term attachment is sometimes used interchangeably with enrolment and empanelment. Provider-patient attachment is a confirmed affiliation between a patient and a regular primary care provider (PCP). This affiliation can be formal or informal. The goals are to deliver longitudinal care and establish a therapeutic relationship (relational continuity). Enrolment and empanelment are mechanisms that enable the affiliation of a patient with a PCP. Enrolment is a formal process of provider-patient affiliation, while empanelment is the assignment of a patient to a PCP.

CONCLUSION

A universal definition of provider-patient attachment is provided: the confirmed and documented affiliation between a patient and a regular PCP (a clinician, ie, a family physician or nurse practitioner, etc), or a combination of clinician and care team or practice in which the PCP is responsible for providing longitudinal and continuous care to the patient via any delivery channel (ie, in person, remotely, or both), enabled by provider access to patient health information.

[Ensuring primary care in Germany-findings from a quantitative survey of general practitioners]

BACKGROUND

Given the risk of a shortage of general practitioners in private practice, the question arises as to which concepts can make an effective contribution. To date, there is a lack of studies that comprehensively shed light on how general practitioners, based on their professional experience, view different approaches to ensuring primary care in the long term.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to determine the positions, attitudes, and experiences of general practitioners with regard to ensuring primary care.

METHODS

Using an online survey, a total of 4176 general practitioners were surveyed between February and June 2023. In addition to the descriptive analysis, a t-test on independent samples was used to determine significant differences between two groups.

RESULTS

Of those surveyed, 42% reported a noticeable decline of general medical practices in their area. In addition, 53% saw a declining attractiveness of primary care for young doctors, which is attributed to three problem areas: 1) the position of primary care in the healthcare system, 2) requirements for training and further education, and 3) working conditions. In order to secure primary care, those surveyed were primarily in favor of the following approaches: establishing a primary care physician system (85%), increasing the promotion of interest and points of contact in training and further education (80%), strengthening multi-professional outpatient care centers (64%), restructuring curricula (56%) and admission criteria for medical studies (50%), and reforming general medical training (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

As the results show, general practitioners have their own suggestions and preferences that complement existing expert assessments. General practitioners should be more consistently involved in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of measures to stabilize primary care.

The impact of patient registration on utilisation and quality of care: a propensity score matching and staggered difference-in-differences analysis of a cohort of 16,775 people with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Luxembourg introduced a Referring Doctor (RD) policy, whereby patients voluntarily register with a primary care practitioner, who coordinates patients' health care and ensures optimal follow-up. We contribute to the limited evidence base on patient registration by evaluating the effects of the RD policy.

METHODS

We used data on 16,775 people with type 2 diabetes on oral medication (PWT2D), enrolled with the Luxembourg National Fund from 2010 to 2018. We examined the utilisation of primary and specialist outpatient care, quality of care process indicators, and reimbursed prescribed medicines over the short- (until 2015) and medium-term (until 2018). We used propensity score matching to identify comparable groups of patients with and without an RD. We applied difference-in-differences methods that accounted for patients' registration with an RD in different years.

RESULTS

There was low enrolment of PWT2D in the RD programme. The differences-in-differences parallel trends assumption was not met for: general practitioner (GP) consultations, GP home visits (medium-term), HbA1c test (short-term), complete cholesterol test (short-term), kidney function (urine) test (short-term), and the number of repeat prescribed cardiovascular system medicines (short-term). There was a statistically significant increase in the number of: HbA1c tests (medium-term: 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.18)); kidney function (blood) tests in the short- (0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.19)) and medium-term (0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.20)); kidney function (urine) tests (medium-term: 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.10)); repeat prescribed medicines in the short- (0.19 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.36)) and medium-term (0.18 (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.34)); and repeat prescribed cardiovascular system medicines (medium-term: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15)). Sensitivity analyses also revealed increases in kidney function (urine) tests (short-term: 0.07 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.11)) and dental consultations (short-term: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.11), and decreases in specialist consultations (short-term: -0.28, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.04; medium-term: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The RD programme had a limited effect on care quality indicators and reimbursed prescribed medicines for PWT2D. Future research should extend the analysis beyond this cohort and explore data linkage to include clinical outcomes and socio-economic characteristics.

Continuity in general practice and hospitalization patterns: an observational study

BACKGROUND

High continuity of care is a key feature of strong general practice. This study aimed to assess the effect of a programme for enhancing strong general practice care on the continuity of care in Germany. The second aim was to assess the effect of continuity of care on hospitalization patterns.

METHODS

We performed an observational study in Germany, involving patients who received a strong general practice care programme (n=1.037.075) and patients who did not receive this programme (n=723.127) in the year 2017. We extracted data from a health insurance database. The cohorts were compared with respect to three measures of continuity of care (Usual Provider Index, Herfindahl Index, and the Sequential Continuity Index), adjusted for patient characteristics. The effects of continuity in general practice on the rates of hospitalization, rehospitalization, and avoidable hospitalization were examined in multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to the control cohort, continuity in general practice was higher in patients who received the programme (continuity measures were 12.47 to 23.76% higher, P< 0.0001). Higher continuity of care was independently associated with lowered risk of hospitalization, rehospitalization, and avoidable hospitalization (relative risk reductions between 2.45 and 9.74%, P< 0.0001). Higher age, female sex, higher morbidity (Charlson-index), and home-dwelling status (not nursing home) were associated with higher rates of hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Higher continuity of care may be one of the mechanisms underlying lower hospitalization rates in patients who received strong general practice care, but further research is needed to examine the causality underlying the associations.

The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review

Background

Several countries around the world have implemented multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care, as a way of strengthening their health systems to cope with an aging chronically ill population and rising costs. Some of these efforts have included technology-based enhancements as one of the features to support the overall intervention, but their details and impacts have not been explored.

Objective

This study aimed to identify the role of digital/health technologies within wider multifeature interventions that are aimed at enhancing primary care, and to describe their aims and stakeholders, types of technologies used, and potential impacts.

Methods

A systematic review was performed following Cochrane guidelines. An electronic search, conducted on May 30, 2019, was supplemented with manual and grey literature searches in December 2019, to identify multicomponent interventions that included at least one technology-based enhancement. After title/abstract and full text screening, selected articles were assessed for quality based on their study design. A descriptive narrative synthesis was used for analysis and presentation of the results.

Results

Of 37 articles, 14 (38%) described the inclusion of a technology-based innovation as part of their multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care. The most commonly identified technologies were the use of electronic health records, data monitoring technologies, and online portals with messaging platforms. The most common aim of these technologies was to improve continuity of care and comprehensiveness, which resulted in increased patient satisfaction, increased primary care visits compared to specialist visits, and the provision of more health prevention education and improved prescribing practices. Technologies seem also to increase costs and utilization for some parameters, such as increased consultation costs and increased number of drugs prescribed.

Conclusions

Technologies and digital health have not played a major role within comprehensive innovation efforts aimed at enhancing primary care, reflecting that these technologies have not yet reached maturity or wider acceptance as a means for improving primary care. Stronger policy and financial support, and advocacy of key stakeholders are needed to encourage the introduction of efficient technological innovations, which are backed by evidence-based research, so that digital technologies can fulfill the promise of supporting strong sustainable primary care.

Multicomponent interventions for enhancing primary care: a systematic review

Background

Many countries have implemented interventions to enhance primary care to strengthen their health systems. These programmes vary widely in features included and their impact on outcomes.

Aim

To identify multiple-feature interventions aimed at enhancing primary care and their effects on measures of system success — that is, population health, healthcare costs and utilisation, patient satisfaction, and provider satisfaction (quadruple-aim outcomes).

Design and setting

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Method

Electronic, manual, and grey-literature searches were performed for articles describing multicomponent primary care interventions, providing details of their innovation features, relationship to the ‘4Cs’ (first contact, comprehensiveness, coordination, and continuity), and impact on quadruple-aim outcomes. After abstract and full-text screening, articles were selected and their quality appraised. Results were synthesised in a narrative form.

Results

From 37 included articles, most interventions aimed to improve access, enhance incentives for providers, provide team-based care, and introduce technologies. The most consistent improvements related to increased primary care visits and screening/preventive services, and improved patient and provider satisfaction; mixed results were found for hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and expenditures. The available data were not sufficient to link interventions, achievement of the 4Cs, and outcomes.

Conclusion

Most analysed interventions improved some aspects of primary care while, simultaneously, producing non-statistically significant impacts, depending on the features of the interventions, the measured outcome(s), and the populations being studied. A critical research gap was revealed, namely, in terms of which intervention features to enhance primary care (alone or in combination) produce the most consistent benefits.

Prevalence and predictors of having no general practitioner - analysis of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1)

BACKGROUND

Although patients in Germany are generally free to choose their primary healthcare provider, this role should mainly be assumed by general practitioners (GPs). While some predictors of the frequency of use of GP services have been reported in international studies, there is still a lack in knowledge what could deter people from contacting a GP in Germany. To improve healthcare, it is important to identify characteristics of people without a GP.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis was based on the first wave of the "German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults" (DEGS1) conducted by the Robert Koch Institute in 2008-2011. Descriptive analyses and multiple logistic regression by gender were performed to analyze the association between having no GP and age, gender, residential area, socioeconomic status (SES), marital status, working hours per week, general state of health, chronic diseases and health insurance.

RESULTS

Overall, 9.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.4-10.7) of the 7755 participants stated to have no GP, more often men (11.4%) than women (7.6%). Life in urban areas (big cities vs. rural: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.9, 95% CI: 2.1-3.9), younger age (18-29 years vs. 65-79 years: aOR: 4.4, 95% CI: 2.5-7.7) and the presence of chronic diseases (yes vs. no: aOR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6) showed significant associations of not having a GP. For men, the type of health insurance (private vs. statutory: aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0; other vs. statutory: aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4-3.1) and for women, SES (low vs. medium: aOR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7; high vs. medium: aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4-3.0) increased the risk of having no GP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis offers new insights into the use of GPs in Germany and revealed differences between men and women. Public health strategies regarding access to a GP have to focus on men and on women with a low SES. Further analyses are needed to determine whether men with private health insurance prefer to consult a specialist rather than a GP. For young adults, improving the transition process from a pediatrician to a GP could fill a gap in health care.

Determinants of having no general practitioner in Germany and the influence of a migration background: results of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1)

BACKGROUND

It is aspired in the German healthcare system that general practitioners (GPs) act as initial contact for patients and guide through at all steps of medical treatment. This study aims at identifying factors associated with the odds of having no GP within the general population and especially among people with migration background.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis was based on the "German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults" (DEGS1) conducted by the Robert Koch Institute. Descriptive analyses as well as multiple logistic regression models were performed to analyse the impact of a migration background, age, gender, residential area, socioeconomic status (SES) and other factors on having no GP among 7755 participants.

RESULTS

9.5% of the total study population and 14.8% of people with a migration background had no GP, especially men, adults living in big cities and without chronic diseases. The odds of not having a GP were higher for people with a two-sided migration background (aOR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.42-2.55). Among the population with a migration background, particularly young adults, men, people living in big cities and having a private health insurance showed higher odds to have no GP.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary to investigate the causes of the differing utilization of healthcare of people with a migration background and, if necessary, to take measures for an equal access to healthcare for all population groups. Further research needs to be done to evaluate how to get young people into contact with a GP.

Effects of a program to strengthen general practice care on hospitalisation rates: a comparative observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of a large-scale program to strengthen general practice on hospitalisation rates.

METHODS

This observational study compared enrolled patients in the program and a sample of non-participating patients from non-participating GPs in the same geographic area in Germany. Key components of the program are: prompt access to care, comprehensiveness, continuity, empanelment, data-driven quality improvement, computerized decision support, and additional reimbursement of general practices. The outcomes in this study were hospitalisation, rehospitalisation, and avoidable hospital admission up to four years after patient inclusion. Poisson regression models and generalized estimating equations were used to estimate intervention effects.

RESULTS

In the baseline year, 19.1% were hospitalised and 13.6% had a potentially avoidable hospitalisation, 14.5% were rehospitalised within 4 weeks. Across the four observed years, yearly hospitalisations were 9.8 to 14.9% lower in enrolled patients, yearly re-hospitalisations were 5.3 to 11.5% lower, and yearly avoidable hospitalisations were 6.8 to 8.6% lower compared to the control cohort (all differences were statistically significant). The trend in the between-group difference for hospitalisations and re-hospitalisations increased, while it remained stable for avoidable hospitalisations.

CONCLUSION

This study provides strong indications for the positive impact of strong general practice care on population outcomes. Key points A program to strengthen general practice in Germany comprised of prompt access to care, comprehensiveness, continuity, empanelment, data-driven quality improvement, computerized decision support, and additional reimbursement of general practices. Patients who remained in the program during 4 years had increasingly lowered rates of hospitalisation and rehospitalisation compared to a control group of patients. Avoidable hospitalisations were also lower, but no trend of further lowering was found. This might suggest a ceiling effect to impact of strong general practice on hospitalisations.