What mechanisms could link GP relational continuity to patient outcomes?

Kate Sidaway-Lee; Denis Pereira Gray OBE; Alexander Harding; Philip Evans

doi:10.3399/bjgp21X716093

Published eLetters

eLetter submission guidelines

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors

First Name and Middle Initial *

First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.

Last Name *

Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.

Email Address *

Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson{at}gmail.com. PLEASE NOTE: your email address will be published.

Occupation *

Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.

Affiliation *

Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

Beyond relational continuity
Patrick B M Burch

Published on: 28 May 2021

Published on: (28 May 2021)
Page navigation anchor for Beyond relational continuity
Beyond relational continuity
Patrick B M Burch, GP and THIS Institute PhD Fellow, University of Manchester
I read with interest the proposed mechanisms that link relational continuity to outcomes. The discussion is comprehensive and the proposed theories plausible. It is important to note though, that most trial evidence supporting continuity and outcomes examines longitudinal, rather than relational continuity. These two forms of continuity are obviously related and often conflated, but they are different. Despite this, and the lack of trial evidence supporting causation, relational continuity for patients is primary care, is almost certainly a "good thing” which should be maximised wherever possible. However, the current constraints of primary care also make relational continuity difficult to deliver for many practices. We also know that not all patients desire relational continuity or, at times, prioritise timely convenient access over continuity. Whilst policies that attempt to increase relational continuity of care should be advocated for, we need to accept many patients in do not receive relational continuity. It is interesting that the RCGP has chosen to promote Relationship Based Care rather than directly advocating for relational continuity.

Patients who may not want, or be able to see the same clinician, want continuity in its other forms. Continuity encompasses more than seeing the same clinician. Models of continuity such as Haggerty’s describe several aspects of continuity, including clinicians having accesses to appropriate informati...
Show More

I read with interest the proposed mechanisms that link relational continuity to outcomes. The discussion is comprehensive and the proposed theories plausible. It is important to note though, that most trial evidence supporting continuity and outcomes examines longitudinal, rather than relational continuity. These two forms of continuity are obviously related and often conflated, but they are different. Despite this, and the lack of trial evidence supporting causation, relational continuity for patients is primary care, is almost certainly a "good thing” which should be maximised wherever possible. However, the current constraints of primary care also make relational continuity difficult to deliver for many practices. We also know that not all patients desire relational continuity or, at times, prioritise timely convenient access over continuity. Whilst policies that attempt to increase relational continuity of care should be advocated for, we need to accept many patients in do not receive relational continuity. It is interesting that the RCGP has chosen to promote Relationship Based Care rather than directly advocating for relational continuity.

Patients who may not want, or be able to see the same clinician, want continuity in its other forms. Continuity encompasses more than seeing the same clinician. Models of continuity such as Haggerty’s describe several aspects of continuity, including clinicians having accesses to appropriate information (informational continuity) and patients being treated in a joined-up coherent manner (management continuity). Patients expect informational and management continuity when being treated in the NHS. Common sense would suggest that a lack of information and a coherent management strategy between clinicians would lead to poor outcomes. However, there is little in-depth research looking at this or how the various forms of continuity, including relational continuity, interact to produce outcomes. Whilst the addition of Sidaway et als theory to the continuity literature should be welcomed, future research should seek to understand how other forms of continuity influence outcomes. This understanding is needed to optimise outcomes in primary care as it is, rather than how we would like it to be.

Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.

Main menu

User menu

Search

What mechanisms could link GP relational continuity to patient outcomes?

Published eLetters

Plain text

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US

Main menu

User menu

Search

What mechanisms could link GP relational continuity to patient outcomes?

Published eLetters

Plain text

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US