IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Satisfaction in Older Persons and General Practitioners during the Implementation of Integrated Care

Author

Listed:
  • Antonius J Poot
  • Monique A A Caljouw
  • Claudia S de Waard
  • Annet W Wind
  • Jacobijn Gussekloo

Abstract

Background: Integrated care for older persons with complex care needs is widely advocated. Particularly professionals and policy makers have positive expectations. Care outcome results are ambiguous. Receiver and provider satisfaction is relevant but still poorly understood. Methods: During implementation of integrated care in residential homes (The MOVIT project), we compared general satisfaction and satisfaction with specific aspects of General Practitioner (GP) care in older persons and GPs before (cohort I) and after at least 12 months of implementation (cohort II). Results: The general satisfaction score for GP care given by older persons does not change (Cohort I (n = 762) mean score 8.0 (IQR:7.0–9.0) vs. Cohort II (n = 505) mean score 8.0 (IQR:7.0–8.0);P = 0.01). Expressions of general satisfaction in GPs do not show consistent change (Cohort I (n = 87) vs Cohort II (n = 66), percentage satisfied about; role as GP, 56% vs 67%;P = 0.194, ability to provide personal care, 60% vs 67%;P = 0.038, quality of care, 54% vs 62%;P = 0.316). Satisfaction in older persons about some specific aspects of care do show change; GP-patient relationship, points 61.6 vs 63.3;P = 0.001, willingness to talk about mistakes, score 3.47 vs 3.73;P = 0.001, information received about drugs, score 2.79 vs 2.46;P = 0.002. GPs also report changes in specific aspects: percentage satisfied about multidisciplinary meetings; occurrence, 21% vs 53%;P =

Suggested Citation

  • Antonius J Poot & Monique A A Caljouw & Claudia S de Waard & Annet W Wind & Jacobijn Gussekloo, 2016. "Satisfaction in Older Persons and General Practitioners during the Implementation of Integrated Care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164536
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164536
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164536&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164536?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janet L MacNeil Vroomen & Marijke Boorsma & Judith E Bosmans & Dinnus H M Frijters & Giel Nijpels & Hein P J van Hout, 2012. "Is It Time for a Change? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing a Multidisciplinary Integrated Care Model for Residential Homes to Usual Care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-6, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivian Welch & Christine M. Mathew & Panteha Babelmorad & Yanfei Li & Elizabeth T. Ghogomu & Johan Borg & Monserrat Conde & Elizabeth Kristjansson & Anne Lyddiatt & Sue Marcus & Jason W. Nickerson & K, 2021. "Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), September.
    2. Stephen Rocks & Daniela Berntson & Alejandro Gil-Salmerón & Mudathira Kadu & Nieves Ehrenberg & Viktoria Stein & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 2020. "Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1211-1221, November.
    3. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.