Continuity of care, measurement and association with hospital admission and mortality: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study

ObjectiveTo assess whether continuity of care (COC) with a general practitioner (GP) is associated with mortality and hospital admissions for older patients We argue that the conventional continuity measure may overestimate these associations. To better reflect COC as a GP quality indicator, we pres...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2021-12, Vol.11 (12), p.e051958-e051958, Article 051958
Hauptverfasser: Hetlevik, Øystein, Holmås, Tor Helge, Monstad, Karin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e051958
container_issue 12
container_start_page e051958
container_title BMJ open
container_volume 11
creator Hetlevik, Øystein
Holmås, Tor Helge
Monstad, Karin
description ObjectiveTo assess whether continuity of care (COC) with a general practitioner (GP) is associated with mortality and hospital admissions for older patients We argue that the conventional continuity measure may overestimate these associations. To better reflect COC as a GP quality indicator, we present an alternative, service-based measure.DesignRegistry-based, population-level longitudinal cohort study.SettingLinked data from Norwegian administrative healthcare registries, including 3989 GPs.Participants757 873 patients aged 60–90 years with ≥2 contacts with a GP during 2016 and 2017.Main outcome measureAll-cause emergency hospital admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, and mortality, in 2018.ResultsWe assessed COC using the conventional usual provider of care index (UPCpatient) and an alternative/supplementary index (UPCGP list) based on the COC for all other patients enlisted with the same preferred GP.For both indices, the mean index score was 0.78. Our model controls for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, prior healthcare use and municipality-fixed effects. Overall, UPCGP list shows a much weaker association between COC and the outcomes. For both indices, there is a negative relationship between COC and hospital admissions. A 0.2-point increase in the index score would reduce admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions by 8.1% (CI 7.1% to 9.1%) versus merely 1.9% (0.2% to 3.5%) according to UPCpatient and UPCGP list, respectively. Using UPCGP list, we find that mortality is no longer associated with COC. There was greater evidence for an association between COC and all-cause admissions among patients with low education.ConclusionsA continuity measure based on each patient’s contacts with own preferred GP may overestimate the importance of COC as a feature of the GP practice. An alternative, service-based measure of continuity could be suitable as a quality measure in primary healthcare. Facilitating continuity should be considered a health policy measure to reduce inequalities in health.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051958
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_051958</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_358b1ac5e7da4b8f9574e0a2f9a98df1</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2605832669</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-f554307659d28bacfb55d02350009b3a53f6b45f0a941f78f12f5963fe1cc3c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk9v1DAQxSMEolXpJ0BClrggQahjZ7w2ByS04k-lSlzgbDmOvetVYi-202qPfHOcZiktB4Qvcca_9zQzelX1vMFvm4ayi27chb3xNcGkqTE0Avij6pTgtq0ZBnh8735Snae0w-W0IADI0-qEthxWwMRp9XMdfHZ-cvmAgkVaRfMGjUalKZrR-IyU75FKKWinsgse3bi8RduQ9i6rAal-dCnN9ZkbQyzFYvUOKRTNxqUcD3WnkunREPzG5al3vsh02BYUpfJ_eFY9sWpI5vz4Pau-f_r4bf2lvvr6-XL94arugIpcW4CW4hUD0RPeKW07gB4TCmUu0VEF1LKuBYuVaBu74rYhFgSj1jRaU93Qs-py8e2D2sl9dKOKBxmUk7eFEDdSxez0YCQF3jVKg1n1qu24FbBqDVbECiV4b2ev94vXfupG0-uyqKiGB6YPX7zbyk24lpy1mNG2GLw6GsTwYzIpy7JHbYZBeROmJAnDTBACXBT05V_oLkyxbPGWAk4JYzNFF0rHkFI09q6ZBss5MfKYGDknRi6JKaoX9-e40_zORwFeL8CN6YJN2hmvzR1WVr8ijLdAy43QQvP_p9clQHOi1mHyuUgvFmlp88-A_-r9F5ub8Pc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2605832669</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Continuity of care, measurement and association with hospital admission and mortality: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study</title><source>BMJ Open Access Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><creator>Hetlevik, Øystein ; Holmås, Tor Helge ; Monstad, Karin</creator><creatorcontrib>Hetlevik, Øystein ; Holmås, Tor Helge ; Monstad, Karin</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectiveTo assess whether continuity of care (COC) with a general practitioner (GP) is associated with mortality and hospital admissions for older patients We argue that the conventional continuity measure may overestimate these associations. To better reflect COC as a GP quality indicator, we present an alternative, service-based measure.DesignRegistry-based, population-level longitudinal cohort study.SettingLinked data from Norwegian administrative healthcare registries, including 3989 GPs.Participants757 873 patients aged 60–90 years with ≥2 contacts with a GP during 2016 and 2017.Main outcome measureAll-cause emergency hospital admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, and mortality, in 2018.ResultsWe assessed COC using the conventional usual provider of care index (UPCpatient) and an alternative/supplementary index (UPCGP list) based on the COC for all other patients enlisted with the same preferred GP.For both indices, the mean index score was 0.78. Our model controls for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, prior healthcare use and municipality-fixed effects. Overall, UPCGP list shows a much weaker association between COC and the outcomes. For both indices, there is a negative relationship between COC and hospital admissions. A 0.2-point increase in the index score would reduce admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions by 8.1% (CI 7.1% to 9.1%) versus merely 1.9% (0.2% to 3.5%) according to UPCpatient and UPCGP list, respectively. Using UPCGP list, we find that mortality is no longer associated with COC. There was greater evidence for an association between COC and all-cause admissions among patients with low education.ConclusionsA continuity measure based on each patient’s contacts with own preferred GP may overestimate the importance of COC as a feature of the GP practice. An alternative, service-based measure of continuity could be suitable as a quality measure in primary healthcare. Facilitating continuity should be considered a health policy measure to reduce inequalities in health.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051958</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34857569</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>LONDON: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Age groups ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Ambulatory care ; Cohort analysis ; Continuity of care ; Continuity of Patient Care ; Disease ; Education ; Family physicians ; General &amp; Internal Medicine ; General practice / Family practice ; Health care access ; Hospitalization ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; Longitudinal Studies ; Medicine, General &amp; Internal ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Older people ; organisation of health services ; Patient admissions ; Population ; Primary care ; quality in health care ; Registries ; Reimbursement ; Science &amp; Technology</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2021-12, Vol.11 (12), p.e051958-e051958, Article 051958</ispartof><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>2021 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>5</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000726845300023</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-f554307659d28bacfb55d02350009b3a53f6b45f0a941f78f12f5963fe1cc3c13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-f554307659d28bacfb55d02350009b3a53f6b45f0a941f78f12f5963fe1cc3c13</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8912-3426</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/12/e051958.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/12/e051958.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2115,27929,27930,39262,39263,53796,53798,55355,77665,77691</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34857569$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hetlevik, Øystein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmås, Tor Helge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monstad, Karin</creatorcontrib><title>Continuity of care, measurement and association with hospital admission and mortality: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study</title><title>BMJ open</title><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><addtitle>BMJ OPEN</addtitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><description>ObjectiveTo assess whether continuity of care (COC) with a general practitioner (GP) is associated with mortality and hospital admissions for older patients We argue that the conventional continuity measure may overestimate these associations. To better reflect COC as a GP quality indicator, we present an alternative, service-based measure.DesignRegistry-based, population-level longitudinal cohort study.SettingLinked data from Norwegian administrative healthcare registries, including 3989 GPs.Participants757 873 patients aged 60–90 years with ≥2 contacts with a GP during 2016 and 2017.Main outcome measureAll-cause emergency hospital admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, and mortality, in 2018.ResultsWe assessed COC using the conventional usual provider of care index (UPCpatient) and an alternative/supplementary index (UPCGP list) based on the COC for all other patients enlisted with the same preferred GP.For both indices, the mean index score was 0.78. Our model controls for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, prior healthcare use and municipality-fixed effects. Overall, UPCGP list shows a much weaker association between COC and the outcomes. For both indices, there is a negative relationship between COC and hospital admissions. A 0.2-point increase in the index score would reduce admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions by 8.1% (CI 7.1% to 9.1%) versus merely 1.9% (0.2% to 3.5%) according to UPCpatient and UPCGP list, respectively. Using UPCGP list, we find that mortality is no longer associated with COC. There was greater evidence for an association between COC and all-cause admissions among patients with low education.ConclusionsA continuity measure based on each patient’s contacts with own preferred GP may overestimate the importance of COC as a feature of the GP practice. An alternative, service-based measure of continuity could be suitable as a quality measure in primary healthcare. Facilitating continuity should be considered a health policy measure to reduce inequalities in health.</description><subject>Age groups</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Ambulatory care</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Continuity of care</subject><subject>Continuity of Patient Care</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Family physicians</subject><subject>General &amp; Internal Medicine</subject><subject>General practice / Family practice</subject><subject>Health care access</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Medicine, General &amp; Internal</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>organisation of health services</subject><subject>Patient admissions</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>quality in health care</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Reimbursement</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>GIZIO</sourceid><sourceid>HGBXW</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk9v1DAQxSMEolXpJ0BClrggQahjZ7w2ByS04k-lSlzgbDmOvetVYi-202qPfHOcZiktB4Qvcca_9zQzelX1vMFvm4ayi27chb3xNcGkqTE0Avij6pTgtq0ZBnh8735Snae0w-W0IADI0-qEthxWwMRp9XMdfHZ-cvmAgkVaRfMGjUalKZrR-IyU75FKKWinsgse3bi8RduQ9i6rAal-dCnN9ZkbQyzFYvUOKRTNxqUcD3WnkunREPzG5al3vsh02BYUpfJ_eFY9sWpI5vz4Pau-f_r4bf2lvvr6-XL94arugIpcW4CW4hUD0RPeKW07gB4TCmUu0VEF1LKuBYuVaBu74rYhFgSj1jRaU93Qs-py8e2D2sl9dKOKBxmUk7eFEDdSxez0YCQF3jVKg1n1qu24FbBqDVbECiV4b2ev94vXfupG0-uyqKiGB6YPX7zbyk24lpy1mNG2GLw6GsTwYzIpy7JHbYZBeROmJAnDTBACXBT05V_oLkyxbPGWAk4JYzNFF0rHkFI09q6ZBss5MfKYGDknRi6JKaoX9-e40_zORwFeL8CN6YJN2hmvzR1WVr8ijLdAy43QQvP_p9clQHOi1mHyuUgvFmlp88-A_-r9F5ub8Pc</recordid><startdate>20211202</startdate><enddate>20211202</enddate><creator>Hetlevik, Øystein</creator><creator>Holmås, Tor Helge</creator><creator>Monstad, Karin</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>Bmj Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>17B</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>GIZIO</scope><scope>HGBXW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8912-3426</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211202</creationdate><title>Continuity of care, measurement and association with hospital admission and mortality: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study</title><author>Hetlevik, Øystein ; Holmås, Tor Helge ; Monstad, Karin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b539t-f554307659d28bacfb55d02350009b3a53f6b45f0a941f78f12f5963fe1cc3c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Age groups</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Ambulatory care</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Continuity of care</topic><topic>Continuity of Patient Care</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Family physicians</topic><topic>General &amp; Internal Medicine</topic><topic>General practice / Family practice</topic><topic>Health care access</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Medicine, General &amp; Internal</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>organisation of health services</topic><topic>Patient admissions</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>quality in health care</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Reimbursement</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hetlevik, Øystein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmås, Tor Helge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monstad, Karin</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI &amp; AHCI)</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021</collection><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hetlevik, Øystein</au><au>Holmås, Tor Helge</au><au>Monstad, Karin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Continuity of care, measurement and association with hospital admission and mortality: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><stitle>BMJ Open</stitle><stitle>BMJ OPEN</stitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><date>2021-12-02</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e051958</spage><epage>e051958</epage><pages>e051958-e051958</pages><artnum>051958</artnum><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>ObjectiveTo assess whether continuity of care (COC) with a general practitioner (GP) is associated with mortality and hospital admissions for older patients We argue that the conventional continuity measure may overestimate these associations. To better reflect COC as a GP quality indicator, we present an alternative, service-based measure.DesignRegistry-based, population-level longitudinal cohort study.SettingLinked data from Norwegian administrative healthcare registries, including 3989 GPs.Participants757 873 patients aged 60–90 years with ≥2 contacts with a GP during 2016 and 2017.Main outcome measureAll-cause emergency hospital admissions, emergency admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, and mortality, in 2018.ResultsWe assessed COC using the conventional usual provider of care index (UPCpatient) and an alternative/supplementary index (UPCGP list) based on the COC for all other patients enlisted with the same preferred GP.For both indices, the mean index score was 0.78. Our model controls for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, prior healthcare use and municipality-fixed effects. Overall, UPCGP list shows a much weaker association between COC and the outcomes. For both indices, there is a negative relationship between COC and hospital admissions. A 0.2-point increase in the index score would reduce admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions by 8.1% (CI 7.1% to 9.1%) versus merely 1.9% (0.2% to 3.5%) according to UPCpatient and UPCGP list, respectively. Using UPCGP list, we find that mortality is no longer associated with COC. There was greater evidence for an association between COC and all-cause admissions among patients with low education.ConclusionsA continuity measure based on each patient’s contacts with own preferred GP may overestimate the importance of COC as a feature of the GP practice. An alternative, service-based measure of continuity could be suitable as a quality measure in primary healthcare. Facilitating continuity should be considered a health policy measure to reduce inequalities in health.</abstract><cop>LONDON</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>34857569</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051958</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8912-3426</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2044-6055
ispartof BMJ open, 2021-12, Vol.11 (12), p.e051958-e051958, Article 051958
issn 2044-6055
2044-6055
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_051958
source BMJ Open Access Journals; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; PubMed Central; Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />
subjects Age groups
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ambulatory care
Cohort analysis
Continuity of care
Continuity of Patient Care
Disease
Education
Family physicians
General & Internal Medicine
General practice / Family practice
Health care access
Hospitalization
Hospitals
Humans
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Longitudinal Studies
Medicine, General & Internal
Middle Aged
Mortality
Older people
organisation of health services
Patient admissions
Population
Primary care
quality in health care
Registries
Reimbursement
Science & Technology
title Continuity of care, measurement and association with hospital admission and mortality: a registry-based longitudinal cohort study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-11T19%3A10%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Continuity%20of%20care,%20measurement%20and%20association%20with%20hospital%20admission%20and%20mortality:%20a%20registry-based%20longitudinal%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Hetlevik,%20%C3%98ystein&rft.date=2021-12-02&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e051958&rft.epage=e051958&rft.pages=e051958-e051958&rft.artnum=051958&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051958&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2605832669%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2605832669&rft_id=info:pmid/34857569&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_358b1ac5e7da4b8f9574e0a2f9a98df1&rfr_iscdi=true