The search for a cost‐effective Australian model of comprehensive, coordinated patient‐centred care that improves outcomes continues
Continuity of care has long been regarded as a core characteristic of general practice.1 It is thought important because it encourages more appropriate and proactive use of health care services (including hospital care), improves communication between doctors and patients, reduces inconsistency of care, and increases the chances of early diagnosis and effective management of long term conditions. Continuity of care is also associated with greater patient satisfaction, self‐management, and chronic disease management, as well as with fewer hospitalisations and lower mortality.2,3
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Freeman G, Hjortdahl P. What future for continuity of care in general practice? BMJ 1997; 314: 1870‐1873.
- 2. Pereira Gray DJ, Sidaway‐Lee K, White E, et al. Continuity of care with doctors: a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 2018; 8: p. e021161.
- 3. Barker I, Steventon A, Deeny SR. Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ 2017; 356: j84.
- 4. Kalucy L, Katteri R, Jackson‐Bowers E, Hordacre AL. Models of patient enrolment. Primary Health Care Research and Information Service (PHC RIS) Policy Issue Review, May 2009. https://dspace2.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/26593/PIR%20May%2009.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (viewed Feb 2022).
- 5. Dixon A, Mossialos E, editors; European Observatory on Health Care Systems. Health care systems in eight countries: trends and challenges. Apr 2002. http://www.mig.tu‐berlin.de/fileadmin/a38331600/2002.publications/2002.busse_ObservatoryWanless.pdf (viewed Feb 2022).
- 6. Hutchison B, Glazier R. Ontario’s primary care reforms have transformed the local care landscape, but a plan is needed for ongoing improvement. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32: 695‐703.
- 7. Services Australia. Chronic disease GP Management Plans and Team Care Arrangements. Updated 10 Dec 2021. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/chronic‐disease‐gp‐management‐plans‐and‐team‐care‐arrangements (viewed Mar 2022).
- 8. Byrne AL, Baldwin A, Harvey C, et al. Understanding the impact and causes of “failure to attend” on continuity of care for patients with chronic conditions. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0247914.
- 9. Penm J, McKinnon MJ, Strakowski SM, et al. Minding the gap: factors associated with primary care coordination of adults in 11 countries. Ann Fam Med 2017; 15: 113‐119.
- 10. Reed RL, Roeger L, Kwok YH, et al. A general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes: the Flinders QUEST cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Med J Aust 2022; 216: 469‐475.
- 11. Bonney A, Russell G, Radford J, et al. Effectiveness of quality incentive payments in general practice (EQuIP‐GP) cluster randomized trial: impact on patient‐reported experience. Fam Pract 2021; https://doi.org/10.1093/Fampra/cmab157 [Epub ahead of print].
- 12. Janamian T, Jackson CL, Glasson N, Nicholson C. A systematic review of the challenges to implementation of the patient‐centred medical home: lessons for Australia. Med J Aust 2014; 201: S69‐S73. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201/3/systematic‐review‐challenges‐implementation‐patient‐centred‐medical‐home‐lessons
- 13. Australian Department of Health. Health Care Homes: health professionals. Updated 17 May 2021. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health‐care‐homes‐professional (viewed Mar 2022).
No relevant disclosures.