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

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
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

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
Letters

Beyond relational continuity

Patrick BM Burch
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (709): 347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X716537
Patrick BM Burch
University of Manchester, Manchester. Email:
Roles: GP and THIS Institute PhD Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: patrick.burch@manchester.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

I read with interest the proposed mechanisms that link relational continuity to outcomes.1 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, and is almost certainly a ‘good thing’ that 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. While policies that attempt to increase relational continuity of care should be advocated for, we need to accept that many patients do not receive relational continuity. It is interesting that the Royal College of General Practitioners 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 access to appropriate information (informational continuity) and patients being treated in a joined-up coherent manner (management continuity).2 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. While the addition of Sidaway et al’s 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.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2021

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sidaway-Lee K,
    2. Pereira Gray D,
    3. Harding A,
    4. Evans P
    (2021) What mechanisms could link GP relational continuity to patient outcomes? Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X716093.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Haggerty JL,
    2. Reid RJ,
    3. Freeman GK,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 327, 7425, 1219–1221.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 71 (709)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 71, Issue 709
August 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
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.
Beyond relational continuity
(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
Beyond relational continuity
Patrick BM Burch
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (709): 347. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X716537

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Beyond relational continuity
Patrick BM Burch
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (709): 347. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X716537
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
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: a wake-up call from case reports
  • Who is your doctor?
  • Jacquet erosive dermatitis in an era of ‘going green’
Show more Letters

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
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

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