McGhee S M, McInnes G T, Hedley A J, Murray T S, Reid J L
Department of Public Health, University of Glasgow.
Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Oct;44(387):441-5.
The long-term management of patients with chronic conditions such as hypertension presents problems for the health services. Shared care addresses these by coordinating care and defining responsibilities.
This study set out to investigate the feasibility, acceptability and cost effectiveness of shared general practitioner-hospital care for well-controlled hypertensive patients in an urban area by comparing three matched groups of patients.
A total of 554 outpatient clinic attenders, considered suitable for shared care by their consultant, were randomly allocated to shared care or follow up in the outpatient clinic; a third group of 277 patients was selected from a nurse practitioner clinic. Main outcome measures were the proportion of patients in the second year of follow up who had undergone a complete review (blood pressure measurement, serum creatinine level result and electrocardiograph report), acceptability to patients and general practitioners as assessed by questionnaire, and cost per complete review in year two (National Health Service and patient costs).
After two years 220 (82%) shared care patients had had a complete review compared with 146 (54%) outpatient clinic attenders and 202 (75%) nurse practitioner clinic attenders. Blood pressure control was similar in each group. Of 297 general practitioners invited, 85% wished to participate in the study; 61% of questionnaire respondents subsequently wanted shared care to continue while 25% were unsure. Half of the patients receiving shared care preferred this method of follow up. The rank order of cost-effectiveness ratios was shared care, nurse practitioner care and conventional outpatient care, relative differences being most marked when only patient costs were considered.
Shared care for hypertension is feasible in an urban setting, acceptable to the majority of participants and is a cost-effective method of long-term follow up.
高血压等慢性病患者的长期管理给卫生服务带来了问题。共享护理通过协调护理和明确责任来解决这些问题。
本研究旨在通过比较三组匹配的患者,调查城市地区病情得到良好控制的高血压患者接受全科医生-医院共享护理的可行性、可接受性和成本效益。
共有554名门诊就诊者,经其顾问认为适合接受共享护理,被随机分配到共享护理组或在门诊接受随访;第三组277名患者从执业护士诊所选取。主要结局指标为随访第二年接受全面检查(血压测量、血清肌酐水平结果和心电图报告)的患者比例、通过问卷调查评估的患者和全科医生的可接受性,以及第二年每次全面检查的成本(国民保健制度和患者成本)。
两年后,220名(82%)共享护理患者接受了全面检查,相比之下,门诊就诊者中有146名(54%),执业护士诊所就诊者中有202名(75%)。各组的血压控制情况相似。在受邀的297名全科医生中,85%希望参与该研究;随后,61%的问卷受访者希望共享护理继续进行,25%不确定。接受共享护理的患者中有一半更喜欢这种随访方式。成本效益比的排序为共享护理、执业护士护理和传统门诊护理,仅考虑患者成本时相对差异最为明显。
高血压的共享护理在城市环境中是可行的,大多数参与者可以接受,是一种具有成本效益的长期随访方法。