The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions

Background: Even though there is general agreement that primary care is the linchpin of effective health care delivery, to date no efforts have been made to systematically review the scientific evidence supporting this supposition. The aim of this study was to examine the breadth of primary care by identifying its core dimensions and to assess the evidence for their interrelations and their relevance to outcomes at (primary) health system level. Methods: A systematic review of the primary care literature was carried out, restricted to English language journals reporting original research or systematic reviews. Studies published between 2003 and July 2008 were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, King's Fund Database, IDEAS Database, and EconLit. Results: Eighty-five studies were identified. This review was able to provide insight in the complexity of primary care as a multidimensional system, by identifying ten core dimensions that constitute a primary care system. The structure of a primary care system consists of three dimensions: 1. governance; 2. economic conditions; and 3. workforce development. The primary care process is determined by four dimensions: 4. access; 5. continuity of care; 6. coordination of care; and 7. comprehensiveness of care. The outcome of a primary care system includes three dimensions: 8. quality of care; 9. efficiency care; and 10. equity in health. There is a considerable evidence base showing that primary care contributes through its dimensions to overall health system performance and health. Conclusions: A primary care system can be defined and approached as a multidimensional system contributing to overall health system performance and health

Internal medicine specialists' attitudes towards working part-time: a comparison between 1996 and 2004

BACKGROUND: Although medical specialists traditionally hold negative views towards working part-time, the practice of medicine has evolved. Given the trend towards more part-time work and that there is no evidence that it compromises the quality of care, attitudes towards part-time work may have changed as well in recent years. The aim of this paper was to examine the possible changes in attitudes towards part-time work among specialists in internal medicine between 1996 and 2004. Moreover, we wanted to determine whether these attitudes were associated with individual characteristics (age, gender, investments in work) and whether attitudes of specialists within a partnership showed more resemblance than specialists' attitudes from different partnerships. METHODS: Two samples were used in this study: data of a survey conducted in 1996 and in 2004. After selecting internal medicine specialists working in general hospitals in The Netherlands, the sample consisted of 219 specialists in 1996 and 363 specialists in 2004. They were sent a questionnaire, including topics on the attitudes towards part-time work. RESULTS: Internal medicine specialists' attitudes towards working part-time became slightly more positive between 1996 and 2004. Full-time working specialists in 2004 still expressed concerns regarding the investments of part-timers in overhead tasks, the flexibility of task division, efficiency, communication and continuity of care. In 1996 gender was the only predictor of the attitude, in 2004 being a full- or a part-timer, age and the time invested in work were associated with this attitude. Furthermore, specialists' attitudes were not found to cluster much within partnerships. CONCLUSION: In spite of the increasing number of specialists working or preferring to work part-time, part-time practice among internal medicine specialists seems not to be fully accepted. The results indicate that the attitudes are no longer gender based, but are associated with age and work aspects such as the number of hours worked. Though there is little evidence to support them, negative ideas about the consequences of part-time work for the quality of care still exist. Policy should be aimed at removing the organisational difficulties related to part-time work and create a system in which part-time practice is fully integrated and accepted

Dual use of Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration: are there adverse health outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Millions of veterans are eligible to use the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare because of their military service and age. This article examines whether an indirect measure of dual use based on inpatient services is associated with increased mortality risk. METHODS: Data on 1,566 self-responding men (weighted N = 1,522) from the Survey of Assets and Health Dynamics among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) were linked to Medicare claims and the National Death Index. Dual use was indirectly indicated when the self-reported number of hospital episodes in the 12 months prior to baseline was greater than that observed in the Medicare claims. The independent association of dual use with mortality was estimated using proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: 96 (11%) of the veterans were classified as dual users. 766 men (50.3%) had died by December 31, 2002, including 64.9% of the dual users and 49.3% of all others, for an attributable mortality risk of 15.6% (p < .003). Adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, comorbidity, hospitalization status, and selection bias at baseline, as well as subsequent hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, the independent effect of dual use was a 56.1% increased relative risk of mortality (AHR = 1.561; p = .009). CONCLUSION: An indirect measure of veterans' dual use of the VHA and Medicare systems, based on inpatient services, was associated with an increased risk of death. Further examination of dual use, especially in the outpatient setting, is needed, because dual inpatient and dual outpatient use may be different phenomena