Less continuity with more complaints: a repeated cross-sectional study of the association between relational continuity of care and patient complaints in English general practice.
Jinyang Chen, Panos Kasteridis, Zecharias Anteneh, Sheila Greenfield, Fiona Scheibl, Kamil Sterniczuk, Brian H Willis, Iestyn Williams, Tom Marshall
{"title":"Less continuity with more complaints: a repeated cross-sectional study of the association between relational continuity of care and patient complaints in English general practice.","authors":"Jinyang Chen, Panos Kasteridis, Zecharias Anteneh, Sheila Greenfield, Fiona Scheibl, Kamil Sterniczuk, Brian H Willis, Iestyn Williams, Tom Marshall","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Relational continuity of care is associated with better patient experience and health outcomes. In England, relational continuity of primary care has been declining over a decade, coinciding with an increase in patient complaints. This study investigates the relationship between relational continuity of care and patient complaints.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional analysis of linked practice-level data in the English National Health Service (NHS) (2016/2017-2022/2023) obtained from NHS Digital and General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS). A negative binomial model was used to investigate the association between the proportion of patients never or almost never seeing their preferred general practitioner (GP) and new written complaints per 10 000 patients, with adjustment for patient demographics, socioeconomic status, care experiences, practice care capacity and care quality. Mediation analysis was further conducted to examine patients' lost trust and unmet clinical needs as potential mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of patients reporting low continuity was associated with 1.34 more new complaints per 10 000 patients (95% CI 1.23 to 1.46). The association may be stronger after than before the pandemic, among general practices with historically better continuity, and in more deprived areas. The findings were robust in using different measures of relational continuity, adjusting for primary case demand-supply mismatches, implementing a Poisson model with practice fixed effects and excluding ethnicity from the model specification. Mediation analysis showed that neither lost trust nor unmet care needs were important mediators of the effects of low continuity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Self-reported low continuity of primary care is associated with more patient complaints in England. Future research should explore potential underlying mechanisms and establish whether the same relationship exists between objectively measured relational continuity and patient complaints.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018989","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Relational continuity of care is associated with better patient experience and health outcomes. In England, relational continuity of primary care has been declining over a decade, coinciding with an increase in patient complaints. This study investigates the relationship between relational continuity of care and patient complaints.
Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of linked practice-level data in the English National Health Service (NHS) (2016/2017-2022/2023) obtained from NHS Digital and General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS). A negative binomial model was used to investigate the association between the proportion of patients never or almost never seeing their preferred general practitioner (GP) and new written complaints per 10 000 patients, with adjustment for patient demographics, socioeconomic status, care experiences, practice care capacity and care quality. Mediation analysis was further conducted to examine patients' lost trust and unmet clinical needs as potential mechanisms.
Results: A 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of patients reporting low continuity was associated with 1.34 more new complaints per 10 000 patients (95% CI 1.23 to 1.46). The association may be stronger after than before the pandemic, among general practices with historically better continuity, and in more deprived areas. The findings were robust in using different measures of relational continuity, adjusting for primary case demand-supply mismatches, implementing a Poisson model with practice fixed effects and excluding ethnicity from the model specification. Mediation analysis showed that neither lost trust nor unmet care needs were important mediators of the effects of low continuity.
Conclusion: Self-reported low continuity of primary care is associated with more patient complaints in England. Future research should explore potential underlying mechanisms and establish whether the same relationship exists between objectively measured relational continuity and patient complaints.
目的:护理的关系连续性与更好的患者体验和健康结果相关。在英国,初级保健的关系连续性在过去十年中一直在下降,与此同时,患者投诉也在增加。本研究旨在探讨护理的关系连续性与病人投诉的关系。方法:横断面分析英国国家卫生服务(NHS)(2016/2017-2022/2023)从NHS数字和全科患者调查(GPPS)中获得的相关实践水平数据。采用负二项模型调查从未或几乎从未见过其首选全科医生(GP)的患者比例与每10,000名患者新书面投诉之间的关系,并对患者人口统计学,社会经济地位,护理经验,实践护理能力和护理质量进行调整。进一步进行中介分析,探讨患者信任缺失和临床需求未满足的可能机制。结果:报告低连续性的患者比例每增加10个百分点,每10,000名患者中就会增加1.34例新投诉(95% CI 1.23至1.46)。在历史上具有较好连续性的一般做法中,以及在更贫困的地区,这种联系在大流行之后可能比之前更强。在使用不同的关系连续性测量方法、调整主要案例的需求-供应不匹配、实施具有实践固定效应的泊松模型以及从模型规范中排除种族因素等方面,研究结果都是稳健的。中介分析表明,失去信任和未满足的护理需求都不是低连续性影响的重要中介。结论:在英格兰,自我报告的初级保健低连续性与更多的患者投诉有关。未来的研究应探索潜在的潜在机制,并确定客观测量的关系连续性与患者投诉之间是否存在相同的关系。
期刊介绍:
BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement.
The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.