Importance of a Named GP for Patient Care in Sweden
Author Information
Author(s): Lina Maria Ellegård, Anders Anell, Gustav Kjellsson
Primary Institution: Lund University
Hypothesis
Do patients registered with a named GP experience higher continuity of care after their first chronic condition compared to those without a named GP?
Conclusion
Having a named GP at the onset of a chronic condition does not lead to higher continuity of care or better health outcomes.
Supporting Evidence
- Patients with a named GP had a slightly higher usual provider of care index.
- The difference in continuity of care was not statistically significant after adjustments.
- Patients with a named GP made more visits overall, but not specifically for chronic conditions.
- Continuity of care was not guaranteed by having a named GP.
Takeaway
This study found that just having a named doctor doesn't mean patients will get better care or see the same doctor more often.
Methodology
Registry-based observational study comparing patients with and without a named GP over a 4-year follow-up period.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to unobservable factors influencing the choice of registering patients with named GPs.
Limitations
The study did not examine mandated policies for GP registration and could not link GP identifiers across datasets.
Participant Demographics
Patients included were from Skåne County, Sweden, with a focus on those diagnosed with chronic conditions.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website