Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Experienced continuity of care in patients at risk for depression in primary care.
Uijen, A.A., Schers, H.J., Schene, A.H., Schellevis, F.G., Lucassen, P., Bosch, W.J.H.M. van den. Experienced continuity of care in patients at risk for depression in primary care. European Journal of General Practice: 2014, 20(3), p. 161-166.
Download de PDF
Background: Existing studies about continuity of care focus on patients with a severe mental illness. Objectives: Explore the level of experienced continuity of care of patients at risk for depression in primary care, and compare these to those of patients with heart failure.
Methods: Explorative study comparing patients at risk for depression with chronic heart failure patients. Continuity of care was measured using a patient questionnaire and defined as (1) number of care providers contacted (personal continuity); (2) collaboration between care providers in general practice (team continuity) (six items, score 1–5); and (3) collaboration between GPs and care providers outside general practice (cross-boundary continuity) (four items, score 1–5).
Results: Most patients at risk for depression contacted several care providers throughout the care spectrum in the past year. They experienced high team continuity and low cross-boundary continuity. In their general practice, they contacted more different care providers for their illness than heart failure patients did (P < 0.01). Patients at risk for depression experienced a slightly better collaboration between these care providers in their practice: a mean score of 4.3 per item compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.03). The perceived cross-boundary continuity, however, was reversed: a mean score of 3.5 per item for patients at risk for depression, compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.01). Conclusion: The explorative comparison between patients at risk for depression and heart failure patients shows small differences in experienced continuity of care. This should be analysed further in a more robust study. (aut. ref.)
Methods: Explorative study comparing patients at risk for depression with chronic heart failure patients. Continuity of care was measured using a patient questionnaire and defined as (1) number of care providers contacted (personal continuity); (2) collaboration between care providers in general practice (team continuity) (six items, score 1–5); and (3) collaboration between GPs and care providers outside general practice (cross-boundary continuity) (four items, score 1–5).
Results: Most patients at risk for depression contacted several care providers throughout the care spectrum in the past year. They experienced high team continuity and low cross-boundary continuity. In their general practice, they contacted more different care providers for their illness than heart failure patients did (P < 0.01). Patients at risk for depression experienced a slightly better collaboration between these care providers in their practice: a mean score of 4.3 per item compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.03). The perceived cross-boundary continuity, however, was reversed: a mean score of 3.5 per item for patients at risk for depression, compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.01). Conclusion: The explorative comparison between patients at risk for depression and heart failure patients shows small differences in experienced continuity of care. This should be analysed further in a more robust study. (aut. ref.)
Background: Existing studies about continuity of care focus on patients with a severe mental illness. Objectives: Explore the level of experienced continuity of care of patients at risk for depression in primary care, and compare these to those of patients with heart failure.
Methods: Explorative study comparing patients at risk for depression with chronic heart failure patients. Continuity of care was measured using a patient questionnaire and defined as (1) number of care providers contacted (personal continuity); (2) collaboration between care providers in general practice (team continuity) (six items, score 1–5); and (3) collaboration between GPs and care providers outside general practice (cross-boundary continuity) (four items, score 1–5).
Results: Most patients at risk for depression contacted several care providers throughout the care spectrum in the past year. They experienced high team continuity and low cross-boundary continuity. In their general practice, they contacted more different care providers for their illness than heart failure patients did (P < 0.01). Patients at risk for depression experienced a slightly better collaboration between these care providers in their practice: a mean score of 4.3 per item compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.03). The perceived cross-boundary continuity, however, was reversed: a mean score of 3.5 per item for patients at risk for depression, compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.01). Conclusion: The explorative comparison between patients at risk for depression and heart failure patients shows small differences in experienced continuity of care. This should be analysed further in a more robust study. (aut. ref.)
Methods: Explorative study comparing patients at risk for depression with chronic heart failure patients. Continuity of care was measured using a patient questionnaire and defined as (1) number of care providers contacted (personal continuity); (2) collaboration between care providers in general practice (team continuity) (six items, score 1–5); and (3) collaboration between GPs and care providers outside general practice (cross-boundary continuity) (four items, score 1–5).
Results: Most patients at risk for depression contacted several care providers throughout the care spectrum in the past year. They experienced high team continuity and low cross-boundary continuity. In their general practice, they contacted more different care providers for their illness than heart failure patients did (P < 0.01). Patients at risk for depression experienced a slightly better collaboration between these care providers in their practice: a mean score of 4.3 per item compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.03). The perceived cross-boundary continuity, however, was reversed: a mean score of 3.5 per item for patients at risk for depression, compared to 4.0 for heart failure patients (P = 0.01). Conclusion: The explorative comparison between patients at risk for depression and heart failure patients shows small differences in experienced continuity of care. This should be analysed further in a more robust study. (aut. ref.)
Gegevensverzameling