Pulled this out from another thread, because it seems worth looking at.
What do we mean by *continuity of care*?
What is good about it?
Are there good studies on it?
How can we provide it, if deemed important, without damaging ourselves?
Does it actually mean seeing the same doctor every time?
We don't run a personal list system, though most patients stick to one
or other of us. It is inevitable they have to see partners at times -
but some of them don't seem to mind at all. A few patients have the
nouse to use the system - they have learnt individual doctors fields of
expertise and attend appropriately.
If you have complete and thorough notes does that not provide
continuity?
Presumably lack of continuity of care involves telling your story over
and over when you see a different face - something not needed with good
records.
The old fashioned concept was of a family doctor who knew the ins and
outs and intricacies of the family's situation and was almost a friend.
I am not sure that is either possible or desirable today.
Should we not be encouraging patients to look to within their families
and circles of friends to get basic support and first help - so often
they seem to come to us as a first port of call.
Or is that an acceptable role for the modern GP?
There are advantages of not seeing the same doctor each time -both for
patient and doctor -
different brain throws up different possible diagnoses,
patients get stuck in ruts
doctors get stuck in ruts
different skills of doctors
So how should we interpret continuity of care these days?
--
Katie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|