Premium
Continuity of care in after‐hours house call medical services: An exploration of follow‐up patterns in an Australian context
Author(s) -
Ifediora Chris O.,
Rogers Gary D.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.12902
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , medicine , family medicine , service delivery framework , service (business) , continuity of care , patient satisfaction , quality (philosophy) , medical emergency , nursing , health care , business , marketing , geography , philosophy , epistemology , economic growth , economics , archaeology
Abstract Rationale, aims and objectives This study explores the postconsultation follow‐up behaviours of patients who used the Australian after‐hours house‐call (AHHC) medical services. These behaviours provide insights into the nature of the continuity of care (CoC) in the industry and are a measure quality in AHHC service delivery. Understanding the patterns of these CoCs and their predictors will enable stakeholders in the industry, both locally and globally, plan and implement higher quality services. Methods This is a cross‐sectional survey of all 10,838 patients who used AHHC during the last week of January 2016. A validated questionnaire was used, distributed through a mix of online and postal questionnaires. Results One thousand two hundred twenty‐eight questionnaires were returned (11.3%). Had the AHHC not been available, 38.6% of respondents would have gone to their own general practitioners (GPs), 40.1% to an emergency department (ED), 15.9% to an office‐based after‐hours service, and 5.5% would have done nothing. After the AHHC visits, however, 47.3% followed up with their GPs, 8.4% went to an ED, 4.2% arranged for a further AHHC visit, while 40.0% required no follow‐up. Patients who required GP follow‐ups were likely to be dissatisfied with aspects of the AHHC care received, while those with no follow‐ups were generally satisfied. Patients ≥65 years were more likely to require no follow‐ups ( P < .001) and, if they did, were unlikely to do so with their GPs ( P = .04). Where required, follow‐ups for those aged ≤16 years were likely to result in ED attendances ( P = .01), while students generally rely on AHHCs for follow‐ups ( P = .03). Compared to females, males were likely to rely on their GPs ( P = .01), and less likely to go to an ED ( P = .01). Conclusion Most patients seen by Australian AHHC services either end up requiring no further follow‐up, or do so with their own GPs, with few relying on further AHHC visits for follow‐up. The real reasons for follow‐up differences observed by age and gender may need to be explored further so as to ensure that the AHHC services are better used.