Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research Article

Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner--are they a vulnerable group?

K G Sweeney and D P Gray
British Journal of General Practice 1995; 45 (392): 133-135.
K G Sweeney
Institute of General Practice, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D P Gray
Institute of General Practice, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care is much valued by general practitioners but little is known about those patients who do not receive continuity of care. AIM: This study set out to identify and describe a group of patients who did not receive continuity of care from the general practitioner with whom they were personally registered. METHOD: A total of 110 patients (71 female and 39 male) were identified, who did not receive continuity of care, defined as four consecutive face to face consultations which did not take place with the doctor with whom they were registered. This group was compared with an age and sex matched control group who did receive continuity of care, using general practice records, for demographic characteristics, morbidity, relationship problems, number of 'difficult' consultations, failure to attend appointments, and use of an accident and emergency department and of open access clinics. RESULTS: Patients in the study group were more likely to be under the age of 65 years than all patients on the doctor's list. Study patients were more likely than control patients to be in social class 4 or 5 living in a council house. Patients in the study group were more likely than controls to be depressed. Women patients in the study group were more likely to suffer from vaginal discharge. Men patients in the study group were more likely to complain of non-cardiac chest pain. The study group had more marital problems, parent-child relationship problems, and problems involving violence in the family, as well as other relationship problems. Relationship problems included the relationship with the doctor, since a third of all the consultations in the study group were recorded as 'difficult', compared with 3% in the control group. The study group patients were more likely than controls not to attend appointments which they had made, to use the accident and emergency department repeatedly, and to have used other open access clinics. CONCLUSION: Lack of continuity of care is associated with some additional morbidity, an increased number of relationship problems, 'difficult' consultations, and non-attendances, and an increase in the use of open access clinics. The characteristics of this group of patients represent a syndrome which merits further study.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 45 (392)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 45, Issue 392
March 1995
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner--are they a vulnerable group?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner--are they a vulnerable group?
K G Sweeney, D P Gray
British Journal of General Practice 1995; 45 (392): 133-135.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner--are they a vulnerable group?
K G Sweeney, D P Gray
British Journal of General Practice 1995; 45 (392): 133-135.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Improving the ascertainment of families at high risk of colorectal cancer: a prospective GP register study.
  • Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of shared care development for long-term mental illness.
  • Integrated primary mental health care: threat or opportunity in the new NHS?
Show more Research Article

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242