1,114
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Personal continuity of care in Norwegian general practice: A national cross-sectional study

&
Pages 214-221 | Received 23 Mar 2011, Accepted 12 Sep 2012, Published online: 31 Oct 2012

Abstract

Objective. Personal continuity is regarded as a core value in general practice. The aim of this study was to determine the level of personal continuity in Norwegian general practice. An investigation was made of the associations between high levels of personal continuity and patient, general practitioner (GP), and list characteristics. Design. Cross-sectional register-based study Setting. Norwegian general practice in 2009. Subjects. 3220 GPs and 3 725 998 patients on the GP lists. Main outcome measures. The Usual Provider Continuity Index (UPC), which measures the proportion of consultations made by the usual GP, was estimated for patients and aggregated to the GP list level. GPs were grouped into quartiles based on the UPC. Being a GP with a UPC in the two highest quartiles (UPC ≥ 0.80) was the outcome in the statistical analyses. Statistics. Poisson regression models were used to estimate relative risks (RR). Results. The overall UPC was 0.78, increasing gradually from 0.68 in patients < 15 years of age to 0.86 for patients ≥ 60 years of age, and from 0.75 to 0.83 for patients with < 3 annual consultations compared with patients with > 10 consultations. A UPC > 0.80 was associated with longer patient lists and high GP consultation rates. Working in municipalities with < 10 000 residents was negatively associated with a high UPC. The UPC level for GPs was associated with total utilization of GP consultations in the list populations. Conclusion. Overall, the Norwegian goal of a personal GP has been achieved; however, there are substantial variations between GPs and lower UPCs among young patients and in smaller municipalities.

Personal continuity in the relationship between a patient and a GP is regarded as a core value in general practice and is a motivation for the Norwegian patient list system.

  • In 2009, 78% of consultations in Norwegian general practice were with the usual or chosen GP of the patient.

  • The level of personal continuity was highest among the elderly and patients who see their GP most frequently and was lowest among young patients and in municipalities with less than 10 000 residents.

  • A high level of personal continuity in a GP list was associated with a high GP consultation rate, but inversely associated with the GP rates of multidisciplinary meetings.

Introduction

Personal continuity is regarded as important in the provision of high-quality health care by general practitioners (GPs) [Citation1–6] and contributes to trust in the patient–doctor relationship [Citation7–9]. Personal continuity is especially valued among patients with chronic diseases, psychological problems, and among elderly patients [Citation10,Citation11]. Health services with personal continuity are probably less time-consuming and might improve efficiency [Citation12,Citation13], the quality of care for chronic diseases [Citation14–16], and awareness of mental health problems by the GP [Citation6,Citation17].

Although arguments for personal continuity remain valid, the personal aspect of general practice has lost priority in new health-care policies emphasizing rapid access, and with more GPs working in group practices sharing responsibility for patients [Citation18–20].

Patient preferences diverge regarding the value of personal continuity, with patient satisfaction more dependent on the extent to which expectations and preferences are met [Citation11,Citation21,Citation22]. GPs still seem to value personal continuity more than rapid access, whereas patients weigh their preference for continuity against waiting time [Citation23].

With increased complexity of health services, a greater responsibility for patients with chronic conditions, and a stronger focus on quick access in general practice, providers need to improve the exchange of medical information (informational continuity). Improved coordination and collaboration (management continuity) are also necessary to ensure the best possible treatment [Citation24,Citation25].

A list patient system was introduced in Norway in 2001, thus giving all inhabitants the right to choose a personal GP (see ), with personal continuity a main aim [Citation26]; however, little is known about whether or not the goal of personal continuity has been achieved in different patient and GP groups.

Box I. Some facts about the Norwegian Regular GP Scheme.

Aims

The aims of this study were as follows: (i) to assess patients’ use of their usual or chosen GP versus consultations with other GPs overall, and by patient, GP, and list characteristics; (ii) to estimate to what extent the level of personal continuity is predicted by the GP, list, and list-population characteristics; and (iii) to assess the impact of GP personal continuity on the utilization of GP consultations by the list populations.

Material and methods

The study was based on nationwide cross-sectional register data from 2009.

Participants and study population

At the end of 2009, a total of 4063 regular GPs were registered in the National GP Database. Only GPs with normal practice during 2009 were included in the study. Thus, the following groups were excluded: GPs with a list size below the normal limit of 500 (n = 198); GPs without a registered list at the start of 2009 (n = 133); GPs with less than 10 months of practice activity (n = 476); and GPs with < 500 consultations (n = 36).

The analyses of GP continuity were restricted to patients with one or more consultations in 2009, excluding consultations with after-hour services. Patients who changed GP during 2009 were excluded because the usual GP could not be identified at the time of each consultation.

Thus, the study comprised 3220 regular GPs and 3 725 998 patients.

Data and confidentiality

Data on all GP contacts in 2009 were obtained from the National Health Insurance (HELFO) invoice database. GPs send an invoice to HELFO for each patient contact, including the patient's personal identity number and an ICPC diagnosis code. In the current study, we have used only data on consultations and multidisciplinary meetings. Consultations with patients from outside the group practice of the GP are specified (see Box 1).

Consultation data were linked to population data from the National GP Database, which contains information on the age and gender of patients on each list and data on the GP age, gender, size of patient list, and practice municipality.

Data on the educational status of patient list populations and the number of residents in the practice municipalities were obtained from Statistics Norway and merged with the GP database.

The linkage procedures were approved by the Data Inspectorate and the owners of the registers, and were carried out by Statistics Norway. The data are encrypted and personal identification is not possible.

Measure of personal continuity

The Usual Provider Continuity Index (UPC) is a common measure of personal continuity [Citation27]. In the current study, the UPC measures the proportion of all GP consultations with the usual, chosen GP.

The UPC of the patients was aggregated, giving an average UPC for each list population. To study how personal continuity varied with GP, list, and population characteristics, the GPs were grouped into quartiles based on the UPC in their list.

Regression analysis

Two separate regression analyses were carried out. First, being a GP in the upper half of the UPC (UPC ≥ 0.80) was used as the outcome variable in the first regression analysis using the following explanatory variables: the GP age and gender, and whether or not the GP was a specialist in family medicine; the GP consultation rate and rate of multidisciplinary meetings; the proportions of patients in the lists > 60 years of age, male patients, patients between 25 and 60 years of age with ≥ 12 years of education; and the number of residents in the practice municipalities.

Second, the GP lists were grouped into quartiles based on the mean annual consultation rates for the list populations. Belonging to the quartiles with the highest or lowest consultation rate was used as outcome in two regression models. The UPC among GPs was the explanatory variable, adjusted for the population and aforementioned municipality variables.

Statistics

We used the statistical software, STATA 11. When comparing GP groups and making population trend analyses, nptrend was used.

Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) because common outcomes make odds ratios less intuitive to interpret [Citation28].

Results

Within the total study population, the annual consultation rate was 2.52 and the mean UPC was 0.78. The UPC increased gradually with patient age, from 0.68 among patients < 15 years of age to 0.86 for patients ≥ 60 years of age (). The UPC increased significantly with increased list size and greater number of residents in the practice municipality.

Table I. Number of consultations with regular GPs in 2009, GP consultation rates, and the proportion of consultations with the usual (chosen) GP, measured by the Usual Provider Continuity Index (UPC) related to groups of patients, groups of GPs, and their list characteristics.1

GP lists grouped by UPC

The quartiles of GP lists with the highest UPC had a higher mean age, higher proportion of male GPs, larger list size, and a lower proportion in small municipalities (). There was also a significant increase in the GP consultation rate and the rate of multidisciplinary meetings across the GP quartiles from low-to-high UPC.

Table II. Comparisons of GP, practice, and list characteristics between GPs* grouped in quartiles based on Usual Provider Continuity index (UPC) in the list populations (unadjusted trend analyses).

Predictors of high UPC

With a GP consultation rate > 2.55, there was a 2.8 times higher risk for a UPC ≥ 0.80 compared with GPs with a consultation rate < 2.07 (). A rate of interdisciplinary meetings > 25 per 1000 patients was inversely associated with a high UPC.

Table III. Predictors for being a GP with high* Usual Provider Continuity Index (UPC; Poisson regression model, n = 3220 GPs1).

Population consultation rates and UPC

There was a spread in population consultation rates from < 2.10 in the lowest quartile to > 2.82 in the highest. A significant association existed between the lowest consultation rates and belonging to a GP list within the lowest quartile, and between the highest consultation rates and the highest quartile of UPC (). In all quartiles of the UPC, patients from outside the usual GP group practice comprised < 2% of consultations (see ).

Table IV. Association between low or high annual consultation rates in the list populations1 and the Usual Provider Continuity Index (UPC) offered in the GP lists (Poisson regression models) adjusted for socio-demographic factors2 as proxy for need for health services.

Discussion

In this study of utilization of GP consultations in the Norwegian list patient system, 78% of all consultations were with the usual GP. The highest UPC was found for elderly patients and for patients frequently using GP services, indicating a chronic condition. UPC ≥ 0.80 was predicted by a high GP consultation rate and longer lists.

Strengths and limitations

A main strength of the current study was the use of complete and recent (2009) register data, thus avoiding selection bias from skewed recruiting of GPs or patients interested in participating. Data from invoices were regarded as valid in respect of consultation rates.

The study was based on complete information about 3220 GPs working in the list patient system throughout 2009, giving valid information about utilization of GP consultations in list populations served by a GP in normal practice. The study revealed an interruption in GP practices in 16% of the lists due to sickness, paternity leave, further education, or transfer of the practice. The available data were not sufficiently detailed to describe continuity in these lists, and this leaves uncertainty about how well the continuity in the total population was predicted by the UPC in the study population.

Further, we had no information on the reason for choosing to consult another GP, the relational component of the continuity, and outcomes indicating patient satisfaction or health gain.

Using a UPC > 0.80 as the outcome variable in the regression models was arbitrary, but indicates a reasonable level of personal continuity, taking into account that Norwegian GPs are obliged to work one day per week in other PHC services and also have absences for continuing education, collaboration, and vacation.

Comparisons with the literature

Personal continuity, as measured by the UPC, was higher than in comparable studies [Citation29], which is in agreement with the higher continuity found with a personal patient list system [Citation30]. However, we found that Norwegian patients can balance preferences for continuity against waiting time and other values by seeing another GP; this may contribute to patient satisfaction [Citation21].

In the present study, the level of personal continuity was highest for elderly patients and patients with chronic conditions. According to earlier studies these groups seem to value continuity highly [Citation10,Citation11]. The increased probability for not seeing their usual GP among young people may indicate that the list patient system is not sufficiently adapted to the needs of this age group [Citation31].

According to the current study, long lists were associated with a high UPC, indicating that demand for consultations was met to a high degree by the usual GP. This is in keeping with increased patient satisfaction found previously among Norwegian GPs with full lists [Citation32].

The GP consultation rate may indicate priority and time devoted to consulting with patients. Consultation rates showed a positive association with UPC in the present study, supporting an earlier study that the GP consultation rate predicts patient satisfaction with access [Citation33]. The GP rate for participating in multidisciplinary meetings is a marker of management continuity. An earlier study showed an inverse relationship between rates of meetings and list size [Citation34]. In this study, the rate of meetings was inversely related to UPC. In this balance of different tasks, our findings indicate that GPs with long lists give priority to personal continuity.

Further research

The UPC in the GP list influenced the total utilization of GP consultations, as well as after adjusting for socio-demographic factors as proxies for the need for services. Whether this represents poor access when having a GP with a low UPC or GPs offering high personal continuity induce a higher demand for services requires further study.

GPs outside the group were used in < 2% of all consultations, independently of the UPC of the usual GP. This indicates that patients listed with GPs having a low UPC mostly see other GPs in the same group practice when not seeing their own GP; this might ensure informational and management continuity [Citation25]. How these different aspects of continuity influence patient treatment requires further research.

Shared responsibility within groups of 3–4 GPs has been advocated as the way forward for general practice [Citation18,Citation35]. In 25% of Norwegian GP lists, < 68% of consultations are with the usual GP. In smaller municipalities and for GPs with short lists, shared responsibility could ensure the best combination of personal, informational, and management continuity. Changing economic and legal regulations to facilitate shared responsibilities should be tried out and evaluated.

Conclusion

The goal of personal continuity in the Norwegian list patient system is achieved overall with a mean UPC of 0.78 and 50% of lists with a UPC > 0.80. However, the UPC varies substantially and 25% of lists had a UPC < 0.68. Models for shared responsibility are in need of testing.

The personal continuity is lower among young people and in smaller municipalities. Perhaps surprisingly, a high GP consultation rate and longer lists were shown to predict a high UPC.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Funding

The study was financed by the Fund for Research in General Practice, Norwegian Medical Association.

References

  • McWhinney IR. Primary care: Core values. Core values in a changing world. BMJ 1998;316:1807–9.
  • Hjortdahl P. Continuity of care: General practitioners’ knowledge about, and sense of responsibility toward their patients. Fam Pract 1992;9:3–8.
  • Hjortdahl P. Continuity of care: Going out of style?Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:699–700.
  • Guthrie B, Saultz JW, Freeman GK, Haggerty JL. Continuity of care matters. BMJ 2008;337:a867.
  • Hill AP, Freeman GK. Promoting continuity of care in general practice. London: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2011.
  • Gray DP, Evans P, Sweeney K, Lings P, Seamark D, Seamark C, . Towards a theory of continuity of care. J R Soc Med 2003;96:160–6.
  • Cronin E, Campbell S, Ashworth M, Hann M, Blashki G, Murray J, . A tale of two systems: Perceptions of primary care for depression in London and Melbourne. Fam Pract 2009;26:210–20.
  • Ridd M, Shaw A, Lewis G, Salisbury C. The patient–doctor relationship: A synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients’ perspectives. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59:e116–33.
  • Von Bultzingslowen I, Eliasson G, Sarvimaki A, Mattsson B, Hjortdahl P. Patients’ views on interpersonal continuity in primary care: A sense of security based on four core foundations. Fam Pract 2006;23:210–19.
  • Nutting PA, Goodwin MA, Flocke SA, Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC. Continuity of primary care: To whom does it matter and when?Ann Fam Med 2003;1:149–55.
  • Baker R, Boulton M, Windridge K, Tarrant C, Bankart J, Freeman GK. Interpersonal continuity of care: A cross- sectional survey of primary care patients’ preferences and their experiences. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57:283–9.
  • Hjortdahl P, Borchgrevink CF. Continuity of care: Influence of general practitioners’ knowledge about their patients on use of resources in consultations. BMJ 1991;303:1181–4.
  • Saultz JW, Lochner J. Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: A critical review. Ann Fam Med 2005;3: 159–66.
  • Worrall G, Knight J. Continuity of care is good for elderly people with diabetes: Retrospective cohort study of mortality and hospitalization. Can Fam Physician 2011;57:e16–20.
  • Cabana MD, Jee SH. Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes?J Fam Pract 2004;53:974–80.
  • Frederiksen HB, Kragstrup J, Dehlholm-Lambertsen B. Attachment in the doctor–patient relationship in general practice: A qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2010;28:185–90.
  • Haller DM, Sanci LA, Sawyer SM, Patton GC. The identification of young people's emotional distress: A study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59:e61–70.
  • Mainous AGIII, Salisbury C. Advanced access, open access, and continuity of care: Should we enforce continuity?Fam Med 2009;41:57–8.
  • Wensing M, Hermsen J, Grol R, Szecsenyi J. Patient evaluations of accessibility and co-ordination in general practice in Europe. Health Expect 2008;11:384–90.
  • Phan K, Brown SR. Decreased continuity in a residency clinic: A consequence of open access scheduling. Fam Med 2009;41:46–50.
  • Boulton M, Tarrant C, Windridge K, Baker R, Freeman GK. How are different types of continuity achieved? A mixed methods longitudinal study. Br J Gen Pract 2006;56: 749–55.
  • Vedsted P, Heje HN. Association between patients’ recommendation of their GP and their evaluation of the GP. Scand J Prim Health Care 2008;26:228–34.
  • Guthrie B, Wyke S. Personal continuity and access in UK general practice: A qualitative study of general practitioners’ and patients’ perceptions of when and how they matter. BMC Fam Pract 2006;7:11.
  • Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R. Continuity of care: A multidisciplinary review. BMJ 2003;327:1219–21.
  • Freeman GK, Olesen F, Hjortdahl P. Continuity of care: An essential element of modern general practice?Fam Pract 2003;20:623–7.
  • The Regular General Practitioner Scheme – short version of Proposition no. 99 (1998–99) to the Norwegian Parliament. Ministry of Health and Care. Oslo; 1999.
  • Breslau N, Reeb KG. Continuity of care in a university-based practice. Acad Med 1975;50:965–9.
  • McNutt L-A, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:940–3.
  • Guthrie B. Continuity in UK general practice: A multilevel model of patient, doctor and practice factors associated with patients seeing their usual doctor. Fam Pract 2002;19: 496–9.
  • Mantyselka P, Halonen P, Vehvilainen A, Takala J, Kumpusalo E. Access to and continuity of primary medical care of different providers as perceived by the Finnish population. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007;25:27–32.
  • Tylee A, Haller DM, Graham T, Churchill R, Sanci LA. Youth-friendly primary-care services: How are we doing and what more needs to be done?Lancet 2007;369: 1565–73.
  • Luras H. The association between patient shortage and patient satisfaction with general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007;25:133–9.
  • Grytten J, Carlsen F, Skau I. Services production and patient satisfaction in primary care. Health Policy 2009;89: 312–21.
  • Hetlevik O, Gjesdal S. Norwegian GPs’ participation in multidisciplinary meetings: A register-based study from2007. BMC Health Serv Res2010;10:309.
  • Stange KC, Nutting PA, Miller WL, Jaen CR, Crabtree BF, Flocke SA, . Defining and measuring the patient-centered medical home. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25:601–12.