RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Delivering relational continuity of care in UK general practice: a scoping review
JF BJGP Open
JO BJGP Open
FD Royal College of General Practitioners
SP BJGPO.2024.0041
DO 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0041
VO 8
IS 2
A1 Fox, Miglena N
A1 Dickson, Jon M
A1 Burch, Patrick
A1 Hind, Daniel
A1 Hawksworth, Olivia
YR 2024
UL http://bjgpopen.org/content/8/2/BJGPO.2024.0041.abstract
AB Background Relational continuity of care (patients seeing the same GP) is associated with better outcomes for patients, but it has been declining in general practice in the UK.Aim To understand what interventions have been tried to improve relational continuity of care in general practice in the UK.Design & setting Scoping review of articles on UK General Practice and written in English.Method An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2002 to the present day was undertaken. Sources of grey literature were also searched. Studies that detailed service-level methods of achieving relational continuity of care with a GP in the UK were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were described narratively in relation to the elements listed in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). A logic model describing the rationale behind interventions was constructed.Results Seventeen unique interventions were identified. The interventions used a wide variety of strategies to try to improve relational continuity. This included personal lists, amended booking processes, regular reviews, digital technology, facilitated follow-ups, altered appointment times, and use of acute hubs. Twelve of the interventions targeted specific patient groups for increased continuity while others focused on increasing continuity for all patients. Changes in continuity levels were measured inconsistently using several different methods.Conclusion Several different strategies have been used in UK general practices in an attempt to improve relational continuity of care. While there is a similar underlying logic to these interventions, their scope, aims, and methods vary considerably. Furthermore, owing to a weak evidence base, comparing their efficacy remains challenging.