Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Chronic care provision in general practices and association with patient level outcomes: a nationwide cohort study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Chronic care provision in general practices and association with patient level outcomes: a nationwide cohort study
Do you wish to request the book?
Chronic care provision in general practices and association with patient level outcomes: a nationwide cohort study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Chronic care provision in general practices and association with patient level outcomes: a nationwide cohort study
2025
Overview
Background
General practice provides long-term care for most people living with long-term conditions, but the impact of generic chronic care provision on patient outcomes has not been examined on a national level. We aimed to investigate whether the provision of chronic care services in general practice is associated with potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potentially preventable hospitalisations in listed patients.
Methods
Nationwide cohort study using linked health registry data covering 4.42 million patients (18 + years) listed with general practices in Denmark in 2019 (
n
= 1769). The exposure was the patient’s practice listing. Practices were grouped evenly into low, medium, or high level of service provision (chronic care consultations, chronic care procedures, and daytime consultations) after adjustment for patient case-mix and multimorbidity. Sub-group analyses were based on list size, morbidity load, deprivation score, and urbanisation. The outcomes at patient level were number of patient days with PIMs (modified STOPP-START criteria) and number of potentially preventable hospitalisations.
Results
In practices providing high levels of chronic care consultations, the listed patients had a 1.2% lower risk of PIMs compared to the medium-level group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.988, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.977 to 0.999, corresponding to 3600 fewer patient years of PIMs per year) and an IRR of 0.964 (95% CI 0.927 to 1.002) for potentially preventable hospitalisations. In practices providing high levels of chronic care procedures, patients had a 1.7% lower risk of PIMs (IRR 0.983, 95% CI 0.972 to 0.993, 5500 fewer patient years of PIMs) and an 8.6% lower risk of potentially preventable hospitalisations (IRR 0.914, 95% CI 0.879 to 0.950, 3700 fewer potentially preventable hospitalisations per year). High levels of daytime consultations were associated with higher risk of PIMs, but not with potentially preventable hospitalisations. We found an inverse dose–response relationship between chronic care provision and adverse outcomes. The findings were stable between different practice characteristics and patient populations.
Conclusions
Patients experienced fewer potentially inappropriate medications and potentially preventable hospitalisations if listed at a general practice with high chronic care provision, regardless of other practice characteristics.
