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
Research

Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients

João Delgado, Philip H Evans, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Louise Allan, Linda Clare, Clive Ballard, Jane Masoli, Jose M Valderas and David Melzer
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (715): e91-e98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2021.0413
João Delgado
Epidemiology and Public Health, College of Medicine and Health;
Roles: Lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip H Evans
College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter and St Leonard’s Research Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Associate professor of general practice and primary care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Denis Pereira Gray
St Leonard’s Research Practice, Exeter.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kate Sidaway-Lee
St Leonard’s Research Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louise Allan
Centre for Research in Ageing and Cognitive Health, College of Medicine and Health.
Roles: Professor of geriatric medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Clare
Centre for Research in Ageing and Cognitive Health, College of Medicine and Health.
Roles: Professor of clinical psychology of ageing and dementia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clive Ballard
College of Medicine and Health;
Roles: Pro-vice chancellor and executive dean
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane Masoli
Epidemiology and Public Health, College of Medicine and Health;
Roles: Advanced clinical lecturer and acting consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose M Valderas
Health Services & Policy Research Group, College of Medicine and Health;
Roles: Professor of health services and policy research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Melzer
Epidemiology and Public Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Roles: Professor of epidemiology and public health
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Higher continuity of GP care (CGPC), that is, consulting the same doctor consistently, can improve doctor–patient relationships and increase quality of care; however, its effects on patients with dementia are mostly unknown.

Aim To estimate the associations between CGPC and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and with the incidence of adverse health outcomes (AHOs) in patients with dementia.

Design and setting A retrospective cohort study with 1 year of follow-up anonymised medical records from 9324 patients with dementia, aged ≥65 years living in England in 2016.

Method CGPC measures include the Usual Provider of Care (UPC), Bice–Boxerman Continuity of Care (BB), and Sequential Continuity (SECON) indices. Regression models estimated associations with PIPs and survival analysis with incidence of AHOs during the follow-up adjusted for age, sex, deprivation level, 14 comorbidities, and frailty.

Results The highest quartile (HQ) of UPC (highest continuity) had 34.8% less risk of delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.84), 57.9% less risk of incontinence (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.58), and 9.7% less risk of emergency admissions to hospital (OR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.99) compared with the lowest quartile. Polypharmacy and PIP were identified in 81.6% (n = 7612) and 75.4% (n = 7027) of patients, respectively. The HQ had fewer prescribed medications (HQ: mean 8.5, lowest quartile (LQ): mean 9.7, P<0.01) and had fewer PIPs (HQ: mean 2.1, LQ: mean 2.5, P<0.01), including fewer loop diuretics in patients with incontinence, drugs that can cause constipation, and benzodiazepines with high fall risk. The BB and SECON measures produced similar findings.

Conclusion Higher CGPC for patients with dementia was associated with safer prescribing and lower rates of major adverse events. Increasing continuity of care for patients with dementia may help improve treatment and outcomes.

  • comorbidity
  • continuity of patient care
  • delirium
  • dementia
  • general practice
  • prescribing

INTRODUCTION

Dementia affects 2–3% of 65-year-olds, and 30–50% of people aged ≥85 years.1,2 Patients diagnosed with dementia often have additional health conditions (comorbidity) that complicate treatment plans, placing them at higher risk of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP),3,4 and are more dependent on healthcare services.5

Continuity of GP care (CGPC) refers to care over time by the same GP. Continuity of care fosters a good working relationship between patient and doctor, and a sense of responsibility, especially if the GP is the named and accountable GP.6,7 Lower continuity of care is associated with poorer medication management8 and worse health outcomes, including increased mortality.9,10 Improving care for patients with dementia is regarded as a priority for healthcare delivery.11 However, limited evidence is available on the relationship between CGPC, treatment, and health outcomes in dementia.

Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data were analysed (a large dataset of patient records from general practice) to investigate the impact of CGPC on treatment and health outcomes in patients with dementia. Associations between CGPC and the incidence of AHOs were estimated, and the effect of CGPC on the management of comorbid conditions (including polypharmacy and PIP) was explored.

METHOD

This was a retrospective cohort study using anonymised medical records from patients in general practice available in CPRD living in England. Records encompass symptoms, diagnoses, and prescribed drugs. Personal identifiers for health care allow for identifying consultations with a specific GP. The CPRD is broadly representative of England’s older population.12,13 CPRD data linked to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) admission data, the UK government Office for National Statistics death certificate register, and quintiles of English Index of Multiple Deprivation based on individual postcode were used.

Population

Individuals diagnosed with dementia at any time before the study start date (1 January 2016), (Supplementary Figure S1) were included. Diagnosis from primary or secondary care were accepted (diagnosis codes in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). At the study start date, all patients were aged ≥65 years, registered with a practice, and had at least three consultations (required for calculating continuity) during a 1-year lead-in period (1 January 2015 until 31 December 2015).

Individuals with young-onset dementia or rare forms of dementia including Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, frontotemporal dementia, and Huntington’s disease were excluded as these are distinct presentations of dementia.14,15 Participants were followed for a maximum of 1 year from study start date up to 31 December 2016.

Evidence is limited about the potential positive effects of higher continuity of general practice care (CGPC) in patients with dementia. There is no cure for dementia, so finding elements of care that make a difference to patients remains a priority. Patients with dementia in the highest CGPC quartile were 34.8% less likely to develop delirium, 57.9% less likely to develop incontinence, and 9.7% less likely to have an emergency admission to hospital, compared with the lowest quartile. Higher CGPC was also associated with lower medication burden and fewer potential inappropriate prescriptions. This study produced evidence that higher continuity of care may contribute to improved clinical management, and to the health and quality of life of patients with dementia.

How this fits in

Continuity of GP care (CGPC)

CGPC was measured in the lead-in period, 1 year before the study start date. It focused on GP consultations, disregarding other providers (for example, nurses). CGPC was estimated using:

  • the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) Index, the proportion of a patient’s contacts with their most frequently seen GP;16,17

  • the Bice–Boxerman Continuity of Care (BB) Index, the dispersion of consultations among GPs;16,17 and

  • the Sequential Continuity of Care (SECON) Index, the proportion of sequential consultations with the same GP, that is, the same doctor providing the previous and current consultation.16,17

Indices produce a score between zero (no continuity) to one (perfect continuity).

Comorbidities and frailty

In total, 14 comorbidities that are covered in the NHS Quality and Outcomes Framework, a programme to improve the quality of GP recording,18 were included (Table 1). Diagnoses were accepted at any time before the study start date in either primary or secondary care (for cancer, only records from 5 years before the study start date were considered since cancer survivors without recurrence of disease after 5 years were considered to be without cancer). Frailty was measured by the Electronic Frailty Index, an algorithm that uses GP records to classify patients as fit (non-frail), mild, moderate, or severe frailty, based on the accumulation of 36 deficits.19

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of those with a diagnosis of dementia

Management of comorbid conditions

Number of prescriptions and PIP were characterised during the lead-in period. Prescriptions in the 3 months before the study start date were counted, based on chapters 1–15 of the British National Formulary, excluding repeat prescriptions.20 Polypharmacy and extreme polypharmacy are defined as ≥5 and ≥10 prescriptions, respectively. PIP was defined as the prescription of any combination of drugs deemed potentially harmful by STOPP/START version 2 criteria. In total, 56 of the 80 defined criteria were implemented using methods described by Delgado et al.4

Adverse health outcomes (AHOs)

A list of AHOs was selected that are common in older patients, which were previously used to estimate the health impact of PIP in people living with dementia.4 Incidence of AHOs was recorded during 1 year of follow-up; the selected list included all-cause mortality, emergency admissions to hospital and diagnoses of delirium, anaemia, falls, fractures, incontinence, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and pneumonia recorded in primary care records. AHOs were recorded at first occurrence during the follow-up period.

Statistical analysis

Quartiles of CGPC measures (highest quartile [HQ], high intermediate quartile [HIQ], low intermediate quartile [LIQ], and lowest quartile [LQ]) were used to characterise levels of continuity.

Analyses on associations between CGPC and baseline data (for example, demographics, prescriptions data, and PIP) used two-sided Student’s t-test and linear regression models for continuous variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and negative binomial models for count data (for example, count of prescriptions and PIP), and χ2 and logistic regression models for categorical variables. Survival analyses tested associations between CGPC and incidence of AHOs during follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used for mortality, and Fine and Gray competing risk models, with mortality as competing risk, for all other longitudinal outcomes.21

All models were adjusted for age (squared), sex, quintiles of multiple deprivation, diagnosis of 14 chronic conditions (listed in Table 1), frailty classification based on the Electronic Frailty Index, and the number of consultations during the lead-in period (a proxy of medical needs). Survival analyses were also adjusted for the prior presence of the target outcome when analysing repeatable events.

Sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Tables S3–S5) include:

  • restricting analyses to individuals living in the community, defined as individuals without a recorded GP consultation in a nursing or residential home during the lead-in period;

  • excluding the first 6 months of follow-up (to test for reverse causation); and

  • exclusion of the first and fifth quintile of number of consultations in the lead-in period.

Statistical significance was set at a P-value <0.05. All analyses were conducted using Stata Version 15.

RESULTS

There were 9324 individuals who were diagnosed with dementia before the study start date (age mean 84.5 years, SD 7.4, 65.7% female) and met the inclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients with dementia had an average of 14.5 (SD 9.9) consultations with a GP during the lead period (data not shown). In total, 92.1% (n = 8589) had at least one additional comorbidity to dementia, with 55.7% having three or more additional conditions. Participants were followed on average for 327.2 days, with 80.4% (n = 7497) of participants followed for the maximum full calendar year (data not shown). Polypharmacy and PIP were identified in 81.6% (n = 7612) and 75.4% (n = 7027) of the sample, respectively. As shown in Table 1, 8.8% (n = 821) were nursing or residential home residents.

Continuity of GP care (CGPC) and adverse health outcomes (AHOs)

During follow-up, 1827 of patients (19.6%) died (Table 1). The most commonly recorded AHO during follow-up was emergency admission to hospital (n = 3644, 39.1%), followed by falls (n = 720, 7.7%), pneumonia (n = 716, 7.7%), delirium (n = 488, 5.2%), and incontinence (n = 329, 3.5%). The least recorded was osteoporosis (n = 93, 1.0%).

Patients in the HQ of the UPC, compared with those in the quartile with least continuity (LQ), displayed reduction in risk of delirium by 34.8% (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.84, P<0.01), reduction in risk of incontinence by 57.9% (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.58, P<0.01), and reduction in risk of emergency admission to hospital by 9.7% (OR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.99, P = 0.03), (Figure 1). Dose–response was observed for the intermediate quartiles (Figure 1). The BB and SECON indices produced similar findings, although for the SECON the association with reduced risk of hospital admissions was not significant (Supplementary Table S4).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Relative risk of incidence of adverse health outcomes by quartile of Usual Provider of Care Index (reference: quartile with least continuity) in patients with dementia.a

aAll analyses were adjusted for age, sex, the diagnosis of 14 chronic conditions and prior incidence of outcome (except for all-cause mortality), frailty status, and number of GP consultations during the lead-in period. CI = confidence interval. Q4 = quartile with highest continuity. Q3 = high intermediate quartile. Q2 = low intermediate quartile.

Results remained stable after excluding individuals in the lowest and highest quintiles of number of consultations with GPs (Supplementary Table S5), and after restricting analyses to individuals living in the community (Supplementary Table S6). Censoring the first 6 months of follow-up did not significantly alter the association with delirium and incontinence, although emergency admission to hospital became non-significant (Supplementary Table S7).

Treatment of patients with dementia

Patients in the HQ of the UPC had fewer prescriptions (mean 8.52, SD 4.75) than those in the LQ (mean 9.67, SD 5.31, P<0.01). A fully adjusted negative binomial regression model confirmed a dose–response relationship with fewer medications by increasing quartiles of UPC (Table 2). The HQ also had a reduced risk of extreme polypharmacy compared with the LQ (OR 0.83, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.95, P<0.01). The BB and SECON indices produced similar results, although without a dose–response in unadjusted models (Table 2 and Supplementary Table S8).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Number of drugs and prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing by quartiles of continuity of GP care

Patients in the HQ of the UPC had significantly fewer instances of PIP (mean 2.09, SD 2.06) compared with the LQ (mean 2.50, SD 2.28, P<0.01). Negative binomial regression models confirmed this reduction in PIP was statistically significant (Table 2). Higher levels of CGPC were not associated with the likelihood of having ≥1 PIP. The BB and SECON indices produced similar results, although without a dose–response in unadjusted models (Table 2 and Supplementary Table S8).

Patients in the HQ of the UPC, compared with the LQ, were 12.3% less likely to be prescribed loop diuretics for treatment of hypertension in patients with urinary incontinence (OR 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.99, P = 0.03); 25.4% less likely to receive benzodiazepines if at risk of falling (OR 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.89, P<0.01), 6.7% less likely to receive drugs likely to cause constipation (OR 0.93, 95% CI = 0.89 to 0.98, P = 0.01); 15.4% less likely to receive corticosteroids (other than periodic intra-articular injections for mono-articular pain) for osteoarthritis (Table 3). The BB and SECON indices produced similar findings, although the SECON reduction in prescription of loop diuretics to patients with incontinence was not significant (Supplementary Table S9). Also, patients in the HQ of the BB and SECON were more likely to receive benzodiazepines lasting over 1 month (BB OR 1.18, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.33, P<0.01; SECON OR 1.13, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.28, P = 0.05) (Supplementary Table S9).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Association between prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing by quartile of Usual Provider of Care Index

DISCUSSION

Summary

In this study the continuity in general practice for people with dementia was investigated. Higher levels of CGPC were associated with a reduction in incidence of delirium, incontinence, and emergency hospital admission. For the UPC, this represented a 34.8% reduction in incident delirium, 57.9% reduction in incident incontinence, and a 9.7% reduction in incident emergency admissions to hospital. Comparisons with the least continuity quartiles and intermediate quartiles showed a dose–response relationship suggesting even small increases in CGPC may benefit patients.

AHOs were common in patients with dementia, with 39% experiencing an emergency admission to hospital, 5.2% experiencing delirium, and 3.5% experiencing incontinence during the follow-up period. For delirium, which is underdiagnosed, incidence may be higher.22,23 Patients with dementia have an increased risk for developing delirium, three times the risk of incontinence, and almost 50% more risk of admission to hospital compared with patients without dementia.23–25

Therefore a reduction in risks through CGPC can be particularly beneficial.

People with dementia have characteristically high levels of comorbidity (92% in this sample),26 and Guo et al have shown the effect of continuity in reducing drug–drug interaction increases with comorbidity.27 Benefits to health may extend beyond prevention of AHOs as higher continuity of care has also been associated with slower progression of comorbid conditions.28 Patients with dementia are therefore a key patient group to benefit from higher CGPC.

The results in the current study show higher CGPC leads to better health outcomes, at least in part by reducing inappropriate medication.6,29 Higher CGPC was also associated with fewer drugs deemed potentially inappropriate and with lower medication burden. High medication burden, although not always inappropriate, has been linked to worse health outcomes.30 Specifically, patients in the HQ were less likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines if at risk of falling and drugs likely to cause constipation — drug interactions that increase the risk of delirium. This group was also less likely to receive loop diuretics for the treatment of hypertension in individuals with concurrent urinary incontinence, which can exacerbate incontinence symptoms. This reduction in drug prescribing is consistent with the observed reductions in risk of incident delirium and incontinence found in patients in the HQ of CGPC, indicating improved medication management may contribute to the gains in health associated with higher CGPC.6,29,31

Strengths and limitations

The large study sample is broadly representative of patients living with dementia in England. CGPC, as well as treatment and AHOs, have been characterised using ‘real-world’ data from general practices, with accurate data on GP-recorded diagnoses and prescriptions. HES data was used to ascertain outcomes during the follow-up. CGPC was calculated using the UPC, BB, and SECON indices, which are established and peer-reviewed algorithms.16,17 In total, 1851 individuals with less than three GP visits were excluded from the study. These are likely comparatively younger and healthier patients and less dependent on healthcare services. The observational nature of this study provides data on statistical associations but cannot indicate causation. This study has, nonetheless, produced robust analyses including adjustment for 14 chronic comorbidities, frailty, and use of health services. Results remained stable after excluding the patients with uncharacteristically low or high consultations and when focusing on patients living in the community to minimise the effect of extreme frailty that was not controlled for by the adjustments.

Study design and sensitivity analyses excluding the first 6 months of follow-up minimise the potential role of reverse-causation driving the findings. Finally, the number of PIP criteria available means associations with CGPC may be affected by false discovery rates and additional studies are required to reproduce these findings.

Comparison with existing literature

Limited evidence is available on the impact of CGPC in people living with dementia. This study describes novel associations between CGPC and a sizeable reduction in the risk of AHOs delirium and incontinence. Delirium and incontinence are the AHOs with the greatest risk reduction. These may also explain the reduction in hospitalisations. These are important findings for patients with dementia, as delirium often leads to institutionalisation, more admissions to hospital, and death, and incontinence is a humiliating condition that places significant burden on carers.32,33

The findings in the current study are consistent with previous studies asserting that higher continuity of GP care is associated with reduced rates of admission to hospital for patients with dementia,34,35 and for older patients in general.36 Unlike in previous non-dementia specific studies, in this study an association with all-cause mortality was not found;9,10 however, this study had a comparatively short 1-year follow-up and patients with dementia have higher mortality rates, which may have affected estimates.37 The findings on prescribing are also consistent with those from hospital data that found that continuity of care was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate medication.26,29

Implications for practice and research

Treatment plans are complicated for patients with dementia, who often have multiple diseases.4 Patients with dementia can be prescribed PIP from both general practice and hospitals, where 66% of patients are discharged with a PIP.38 GPs play a key role in managing medication regimes and the ability to see the same GP rather than, for example, a locum (that is, greater continuity) can contribute to better medication management and fewer PIP.

Continuity in general practices has been falling in recent years;39 initiatives focusing on ease of access have had an impact on CGPC along with changes to practice organisation, and the lack of funding for implementation.40 The next step is to encourage the provision of more GP continuity. Education on the value of continuity research is needed for undergraduates, postgraduates, and in continuing professional development. Successful implementation, meaning that all patients have the opportunity for continuity, requires additional research on implementation strategies, such as personal lists and measurement of continuity, and support by the Department of Health. A personal list is a patient management approach for GP practices (with multiple GPs, where patients are assigned to a specific GP and then encouraged to consult with them consistently, especially in situations when major decisions about disease/case management are required).41

Continuity of midwifery care is policy in the NHS Long Term Plan; similar policy is needed for general practice.42,43

Continuity of care is recognised as an important step for improving dementia care.11 Patients with dementia are particularly vulnerable to the pressures currently placed on general practices because of high workloads, limited funding, and recruitment difficulties,44,45 and in such circumstances these patients can receive lower standards of care and often lower CGPC.46 Although significant work remains on the implementation of CGPC in practices, prioritising patients with dementia in the meantime, by allowing them to consistently access their named GP, can help prevent AHOs and contribute to better medication management, and by extension lead to better health and quality of life.

Notes

Funding

This project was funded by the Alzheimer’s Society: AS-JF-16b-007. The funder had no role in the design and execution of the analysis.

Ethical approval

The research protocol was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for analysis of CPRD data: 18_306R.

Data

For access to study protocol and programming code contact the corresponding author, João Delgado. The raw data are available from Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received July 5, 2021.
  • Revision requested August 20, 2021.
  • Accepted November 3, 2021.
  • © The Authors
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Meloni E,
    2. Vetrano DL,
    3. Bernabei R,
    4. Onder G
    (2015) Appropriateness of pharmacological treatment in older people with dementia. Ital J Med 9, 3, 212–216.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Swanson KA,
    2. Carnahan RM
    (2007) Dementia and comorbidities: an overview of diagnosis and management. J Pharm Pract 20, 4, 296–317.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Delgado J,
    2. Bowman K,
    3. Clare L
    (2020) Potentially inappropriate prescribing in dementia: a state-of-the-art review since 2007. BMJ Open 10, e029172.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Delgado J,
    2. Jones L,
    3. Bradley MC,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Potentially inappropriate prescribing in dementia, multi-morbidity and incidence of adverse health outcomes. Age Ageing 50, 2, 457–464.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Grober E,
    2. Sanders A,
    3. Hall CB,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Predict health care use in the elderly. J Prim Care Community Health 3, 1, 23–28.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hjortdahl P
    (1992) Continuity of care: general practitioners’ knowledge about, and sense of responsibility toward their patients. Fam Pract 9, 1, 3–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mainous AG,
    2. Baker R,
    3. Love MM,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fam Med 33, 1, 22–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Warren JR,
    2. Falster MO,
    3. Tran B,
    4. Jorm L
    (2015) Association of continuity of primary care and statin adherence. PLoS ONE 10, 10, 1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Pereira Gray DJ,
    2. Sidaway-Lee K,
    3. White E,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Continuity of care with doctors — a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 8, 6, 1–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Baker R,
    2. Bankart MJ,
    3. Freeman GK,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Primary medical care continuity and patient mortality. Br J Gen Pract, https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X712289.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bunn F,
    2. Burn A-M,
    3. Goodman C,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Comorbidity and dementia: a mixed-method study on improving health care for people with dementia (CoDem). Health Serv Deliv Res 4, 8, 1–156.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Herrett E,
    2. Gallagher AM,
    3. Bhaskaran K,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Data resource profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol 44, 3, 827–836.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Herrett E,
    2. Thomas SL,
    3. Schoonen WM,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 69, 1, 4–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mendez MF,
    2. Selwood A,
    3. Mastri AR,
    4. Frey WH
    (1993) Pick’s disease versus Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 43, 2, 289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mahant N,
    2. McCusker EA,
    3. Byth K,
    4. Graham S
    (2003) Huntington’s disease. Neurology 61, 8, 1085–1092.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Dreiher J,
    2. Comaneshter DS,
    3. Rosenbluth Y,
    4. et al.
    (2012) The association between continuity of care in the community and health outcomes: a population-based study. Isr J Health Policy Res 1, 1, 21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jee SH,
    2. Cabana MD
    (2006) Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 63, 2, 158–188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Taggar JS,
    2. Coleman T,
    3. Lewis S,
    4. Szatkowski L
    (2012) The impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) on the recording of smoking targets in primary care medical records: cross-sectional analyses from the Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. BMC Public Health 12, 1, 329.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Clegg A,
    2. Bates C,
    3. Young J,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age Ageing 45, 3, 353–360.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    (2022) Medicines Complete. British National Formulary. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, https://about.medicinescomplete.com/publication/british-national-formulary/ (accessed 11 Jan 2022).
  21. 21.↵
    1. Fine J,
    2. Gray R
    (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94, 446, 496–509.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. De Lange E,
    2. Verhaak PFM,
    3. Van Der Meer K
    (2013) Prevalence, presentation and prognosis of delirium in older people in the population, at home and in long term care: a review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 28, 2, 127–134.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ford AH
    (2016) Preventing delirium in dementia: managing risk factors. Maturitas 92, 35–40.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    1. Bauer K,
    2. Schwarzkopf L,
    3. Graessel E,
    4. Holle R
    (2014) A claims data-based comparison of comorbidity in individuals with and without dementia. BMC Geriatr 14, 1, 10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Shepherd H,
    2. Livingston G,
    3. Chan J,
    4. Sommerlad A
    (2019) Hospitalisation rates and predictors in people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 17, 1, 1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Poublador-Plou B,
    2. Calderon-Larranaga A,
    3. Marta-Moreno J,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Comorbidity of dementia: a cross-sectional study of primary care older patients. BMC Psychiatry 14, 84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Guo JY,
    2. Chou YJ,
    3. Pu C
    (2017) Effect of continuity of care on drug–drug interactions. Med Care 55, 8, 744–751.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Chau E,
    2. Rosella LC,
    3. Mondor L,
    4. Wodchis WP
    (2021) Association between continuity of care and subsequent diagnosis of multimorbidity in Ontario, Canada from 2001–2015: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 16, 1–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Chu HY,
    2. Chen CC,
    3. Cheng SH
    (2012) Continuity of care, potentially inappropriate medication, and health care outcomes among the elderly: evidence from a longitudinal analysis in Taiwan. Med Care 50, 11, 1002–1009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Mueller C,
    2. Molokhia M,
    3. Perera G,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Polypharmacy in people with dementia: associations with adverse health outcomes. Exp Gerontol 106, 240–245.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Howie JGR,
    2. Heaney DJ,
    3. Maxwell M,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ 319, 7212, 738–743.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Raju K,
    2. Coombe-Jones M
    (2015) An overview of delirium for the community and hospital clinician. Prog Neurol Psychiatry 19, 6, 23–27.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Inouye SK,
    2. Westendorp RG,
    3. Saczynski JS
    (2014) Delirium in elderly people. Lancet 383, 9920, 911–922.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Godard-Sebillotte C,
    2. Strumpf E,
    3. Sourial N,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Primary care continuity and potentially avoidable hospitalization in persons with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 69, 5, 1208–1220.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Amjad H,
    2. Carmichael D,
    3. Austin AM,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Continuity of care and health care utilization in older adults with dementia in fee-for-service medicare. JAMA Intern Med 176, 9, 1371–1378.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Barker I,
    2. Steventon A,
    3. Deeny SR
    (2017) Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ 356, j84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Aevarsson O,
    2. Svanborg A,
    3. Skoog I
    (1998) Seven-year survival rate after age 85 years. Arch Neurol 55, 1226–1232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Weir DL,
    2. Lee TC,
    3. McDonald EG,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Both new and chronic potentially inappropriate medications continued at hospital discharge are associated with increased risk of adverse events. J Am Geriatr Soc 68, 6, 1184–1192.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Levene LS,
    2. Baker R,
    3. Walker N,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Predicting declines in perceived relationship continuity using practice deprivation scores: a longitudinal study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X696209.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Palmer W,
    2. Hemmings N,
    3. Rosen R,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Improving access and continuity in general practice: practical and policy lessons (Nuffield Trust, London) https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/improving-access-and-continuity-in-general-practice (accessed 22 Dec 2021).
  41. 41.↵
    1. Gray DJ
    (1979) The key to personal care. J R Coll Gen Pract 29, 208, 666–678.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Sandall J,
    2. Soltani H,
    3. Gates S,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4, CD004667.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Medley N,
    2. Vogel JP,
    3. Care A,
    4. Alfirevic Z
    (2018) Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11, CD012505.
  44. 44.↵
    1. Hobbs FDR,
    2. Bankhead C,
    3. Mukhtar T,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Clinical workload in UK primary care: a retrospective analysis of 100 million consultations in England, 2007–14. Lancet 387, 10035, 2323–2330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Baird B,
    2. Charles A,
    3. Honeyman M,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Understanding pressures in general practice (King’s Fund, London).
  46. 46.↵
    1. Bunn F,
    2. Burn AM,
    3. Robinson L,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Healthcare organisation and delivery for people with dementia and comorbidity: a qualitative study exploring the views of patients, carers and professionals. BMJ Open 7, 1, 1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 72 (715)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 72, Issue 715
February 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
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.
Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients
(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
Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients
João Delgado, Philip H Evans, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Louise Allan, Linda Clare, Clive Ballard, Jane Masoli, Jose M Valderas, David Melzer
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (715): e91-e98. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0413

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients
João Delgado, Philip H Evans, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Louise Allan, Linda Clare, Clive Ballard, Jane Masoli, Jose M Valderas, David Melzer
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (715): e91-e98. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0413
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
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • comorbidity
  • continuity of patient care
  • delirium
  • dementia
  • general practice
  • prescribing

More in this TOC Section

  • Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue after COVID-19: a prospective matched cohort study in primary care
  • Home monitoring by pulse oximetry of primary care patients with COVID-19: a pilot randomised controlled trial
  • Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review
Show more Research

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