Darden P M, Ector W, Moran C, Quattlebaum T G
Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina 29425, USA.
Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):1263-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.108.6.1263.
There is widespread agreement among pediatric educators that continuity (following a panel of patients on a first contact basis for all their health care) is an important part of the education of pediatricians.
To measure continuity in a pediatric residency practice and to compare this continuity with 2 nearby private general pediatric group practices. We also examined measures of continuity suggested in the literature.
Visit data were obtained from the practice billing system for a resident continuity practice and 2 nearby private practices for the 3-year period from July 1, 1992, to June 30, 1995. Visit data used were restricted to patients seen in the office of the practices during regular office hours. Continuity was measured using 5 different indices: 1) the usual provider of care index, visits by the usual clinician/total visits, 2) continuity for patient, the average proportion of visits that an individual patient was seen by his or her own physician, 3) continuity for physician (PHY), the average proportion of visits that an individual physician saw his or her own patients, 4) Continuity of Care Index (COC), and 5) the Modified, Modified Continuity Index. During the period examined, pediatric residents were present in the continuity practice for 1 half-day each week. The resident continuity practice (RCP) had 57 residents and saw 3386 patients for 18 955 visits. Private practice 1 (PP1) had 4 pediatricians who saw 4968 patients for 33 537 visits. Private practice 2 (PP2) had 5 pediatricians who saw 11 953 patients for 75 778 visits.
For all visit types, continuity in the RCP was not as high as in the private practices, PHY-RCP versus PP1, PP2; 53% versus 70%, 77%. However, continuity in RCP was greater than 50% for all measures except the COC index, which precipitously decreases as the number of clinicians seen increases. Examining continuity for health maintenance visits (PHY-RCP, PP2 vs PP1; 96%, 96% vs 82%) RCP was equal to the best of the private practices. The percentage of patients not seen for a health maintenance visit during the study period was lowest in the resident practice (RCP/PP1/PP2, 15/22/30).
Although continuity for all visits in this RCP was less than in private practice, it was surprisingly high, considering the limited time residents spend in clinic. In a particularly important area for continuity, health maintenance visits, continuity was identical to one and superior to the other private practice.
儿科教育工作者普遍认为连续性(基于首次接触为一组患者提供其所有医疗保健服务)是儿科医生教育的重要组成部分。
衡量儿科住院医师培训实践中的连续性,并将其与附近两家私人普通儿科诊所的连续性进行比较。我们还研究了文献中提出的连续性衡量指标。
从实践计费系统中获取了1992年7月1日至1995年6月30日这3年期间一家住院医师连续性实践诊所及附近两家私人诊所的就诊数据。所使用的就诊数据仅限于在正常办公时间内在诊所就诊的患者。连续性通过5种不同指标进行衡量:1)常规护理提供者指标,即常规临床医生的就诊次数/总就诊次数;2)患者连续性,即个体患者由其自己的医生诊治的就诊次数平均比例;3)医生连续性(PHY),即个体医生诊治其自己患者的就诊次数平均比例;4)护理连续性指数(COC);5)改良的改良连续性指数。在所研究的期间,儿科住院医师每周在连续性实践诊所工作半天。住院医师连续性实践诊所(RCP)有57名住院医师,为3386名患者进行了18955次就诊。私人诊所1(PP1)有4名儿科医生,为4968名患者进行了33537次就诊。私人诊所2(PP2)有5名儿科医生,为11953名患者进行了75778次就诊。
对于所有就诊类型,RCP的连续性不如私人诊所,RCP的PHY与PP1相比为53%对70%,与PP2相比为53%对77%。然而,除了COC指数外,RCP在所有指标上的连续性均大于50%,COC指数会随着所诊治临床医生数量的增加而急剧下降。在健康维护就诊的连续性方面(RCP的PHY、PP2与PP1相比;分别为96%、96%对82%),RCP与最佳的私人诊所相当。在研究期间未进行健康维护就诊的患者比例在住院医师实践诊所中最低(RCP/PP1/PP2,分别为15%/22%/30%)。
尽管该RCP中所有就诊的连续性低于私人诊所,但考虑到住院医师在诊所花费的时间有限,其连续性出奇地高。在连续性特别重要的领域,即健康维护就诊方面,RCP的连续性与其中一家私人诊所相同且优于另一家私人诊所。