Rationale, aims and objective: Primary Care Plus (PC+) focuses on the substitution of hospital-based medical care to the primary care setting without moving hospital facilities. The aim of this study was to examine whether population health and experience of care in PC+ could be maintained. Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and experienced quality of care from a patient perspective were compared between patients referred to PC+ and to hospital-based outpatient care (HBOC). Methods: This cohort study included patients from a Dutch region, visiting PC+ or HBOC between December 2014 and April 2018. With patient questionnaires (T0, T1 and T2), the HRQoL and experience of care were measured. One-to-two nearest neighbour calliper propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for potential selection bias. Outcomes were compared using marginal linear models and Pearson chi-square tests. Results: One thousand one hundred thirteen PC+ patients were matched to 606 HBOC patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics (SMDs <0.1). Regarding HRQoL outcomes, no significant interaction terms between time and group were found (P > .05), indicating no difference in HRQoL development between the groups over time. Regarding experienced quality of care, no differences were found between PC+ and HBOC patients. Only travel time was significantly shorter in the HBOC group (P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Results show equal effects on HRQoL outcomes over time between the groups. Regarding experienced quality of care, only differences in travel time were found. Taken as a whole, population health and quality of care were maintained with PC+ and future research should focus more on cost-related outcomes.
Rationale, aims and objective: Primary Care Plus (PC+) focuses on the substitution of hospital-based medical care to the primary care setting without moving hospital facilities. The aim of this study was to examine whether population health and experience of care in PC+ could be maintained. Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and experienced quality of care from a patient perspective were compared between patients referred to PC+ and to hospital-based outpatient care (HBOC). Methods: This cohort study included patients from a Dutch region, visiting PC+ or HBOC between December 2014 and April 2018. With patient questionnaires (T0, T1 and T2), the HRQoL and experience of care were measured. One-to-two nearest neighbour calliper propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for potential selection bias. Outcomes were compared using marginal linear models and Pearson chi-square tests. Results: One thousand one hundred thirteen PC+ patients were matched to 606 HBOC patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics (SMDs <0.1). Regarding HRQoL outcomes, no significant interaction terms between time and group were found (P > .05), indicating no difference in HRQoL development between the groups over time. Regarding experienced quality of care, no differences were found between PC+ and HBOC patients. Only travel time was significantly shorter in the HBOC group (P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Results show equal effects on HRQoL outcomes over time between the groups. Regarding experienced quality of care, only differences in travel time were found. Taken as a whole, population health and quality of care were maintained with PC+ and future research should focus more on cost-related outcomes.
Background: In Europe, cardiovascular disease is one of the predominant causes of mortality and morbidity among older people over 65 years. The occurrence of cardiovascular disease can have a negative impact on the quality of life of older patients and their families and family health overall. Assuming that illness is a family affair shaped by culture and health care systems, we explored European health care practices and interventions toward families of older patients with cardiovascular disease and heart failure.Aims: This paper aimed to determine the extent, range, and variety of practices and interventions in Europe directed to families of older patients and to identify knowledge gaps.Materials & Methods: A scoping review was conducted including studies published in Medline, CINHAL, or Cochrane library between 2009 and mid-2020.Results: A total of 22 articles from 17 studies were included, showing diverse practices and interventions. The interventions targeted the family as a unit (six studies), dyads (five studies), patients alone, but assessed family members’ reactions (five studies) or the family member primarily, but assessed the reaction of the patient (one study). Target outcomes were family caregiver burden; health-related QoL; and perceived control in patients; and family functioning and changes in health behavior or knowledge in both, family members and patients. Most studies did not include an integral view of the family as the unit of care but rather had a disease-centered approach.Discussion: This scoping review provides insight into a variety of healthcarepractices towards families of older patients with cardiovascular disease in Europe. Clarifying underlying assumptions to involve families is needed. More studies with family-focused approaches as integral models could lead to practices that improve families’ well-being. Exploring integral models for their acceptance in health care and family systems appears pertinent to develop European policy to support and add to family health.
