Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Continuity and sustainability of care in family medicine: Assessing its association with quality of life and health outcomes in older populations—A systematic review

Abstract

Background

Continuity of care is a core principle of family medicine associated with improved outcomes. However, fragmentation challenges sustaining continuous relationships. This review aimed to provide timely and critical insights into the benefits of continuity and sustainability of care for older adults.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies on continuity/sustainability models in family medicine and effects on older adults. 14 studies met inclusion criteria for final synthesis. Quality was assessed using ROBINS-I. Outcomes were narratively and thematically synthesized.

Results

Greater continuity of care was consistently associated with reduced healthcare utilization including lower emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Continuity also correlated with improved chronic disease management, care coordination, patient-reported experiences, and quality of life. Patient-centered medical homes and care coordination models showed potential to strengthen continuity and sustainability. Thoughtful telehealth integration and technology tools augmented continuity.

Conclusion

Continuous healing relationships are vital for patient-centered care of older adults. While current fragmentation challenges sustainability, innovations in primary care teaming, coordination, telehealth, and health information technology can extend continuity’s benefits. Realizing improvements requires system-wide reorientation toward relationships and whole-person care.

Citation: Nasser Albarqi M (2024) Continuity and sustainability of care in family medicine: Assessing its association with quality of life and health outcomes in older populations—A systematic review. PLoS ONE 19(12): e0299283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299283

Editor: Simone Borsci, Universiteit Twente, NETHERLANDS

Received: February 7, 2024; Accepted: April 25, 2024; Published: December 23, 2024

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (GRANT6090). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

1. Introduction

In the realm of family medicine, sustainability is a critical concept that encompasses the capacity of healthcare systems to provide consistent, high-quality care over time, particularly for the aging population [1]. The sustainability of continuity of care in family medicine implies the ability to offer uninterrupted, coordinated, and comprehensive care across different levels and sites of care, adapting to the evolving needs of older populations [2]. It involves ensuring that healthcare practices are both effective in promoting health outcomes and efficient in utilizing resources to maintain these standards over the long term [3]. Sustainable care models focus on preventative care, management of chronic conditions, and integration of services, aiming to reduce hospital readmissions, minimize healthcare costs, and improve the overall quality of life for older individuals [4]. By emphasizing a sustainable approach, family medicine can better address the complex, multifaceted health needs of the elderly, promoting longer, healthier lives and resilience in healthcare systems [5].

The integration of sustainability into the continuity of care reflects a commitment to not only immediate health outcomes but also the long-term well-being of older populations [6]. Sustainable practices in family medicine involve training and retaining skilled healthcare professionals, leveraging technology for efficient service delivery, and fostering patient-centered care that respects the preferences and values of older adults [7]. It also means advocating for policies and research that support long-term investments in community health infrastructure, innovative care models, and health education [8]. These efforts ensure that quality care is not just available today but is also adaptable and resilient to meet the future health challenges of aging populations [9]. Ultimately, incorporating sustainability into continuity of care is about creating a legacy of health and well-being for older generations, ensuring they have access to the care and support they need to thrive in their later years [10].

The concept of continuity of care has long been a core tenet of family medicine and primary care [11]. Continuity involves an ongoing caring relationship between a patient and clinician over time, rather than isolated episodic encounters [12]. This longitudinal partnership facilitates the provider gaining comprehensive knowledge of the patient’s medical history, values, preferences, and goals. Continuity of care has been linked to a multitude of benefits including improved delivery of preventive services, enhanced chronic disease management, increased patient trust in providers, improved patient and provider satisfaction, and reductions in healthcare utilization and costs [13–15].

For older patients with multiple chronic conditions, continuity with a family physician may bring particular benefits for care coordination, patient-centered care, and overall well-being [16, 17]. However, continuity has declined substantially over recent decades across many healthcare systems, due to fragmentation in care delivery, increased patient mobility, growth of specialty services, electronic medical records implementation, and insurance changes [18–20]. Reestablishing and improving continuity of care for older adults represents a priority for professional organizations like the American Academy of Family Physicians and policymakers in order to enhance outcomes for the aging population [21].

Continuity of care has been described as consisting of three main dimensions: informational, management, and relational continuity [22]. Informational continuity refers to the provider having access to the patient’s medical history and prior care events through medical records and data sharing across settings [23, 24]. Management continuity means consistent evidence-based care in alignment with patient goals and values [25]. Relational continuity involves the longitudinal personal relationship between the patient and one or more clinicians built on accumulated trust and familiarity [26]. While interrelated, these dimensions can be disrupted independently, necessitating a comprehensive approach to evaluating and strengthening continuity of care [27, 28].

Given its multidimensional nature, measuring continuity of care poses challenges. Approaches used in research have included survey questions, scoring systems leveraging usage data, and direct observations of patient-provider encounters [29, 30]. Asking patients if they have a regular doctor whom they see for most of their care has been a commonly used and validated survey item to simply assess informational continuity [31]. More complex validated measures like the Usual Provider of Care index quantify continuity over time using visit patterns, though require extensive clinical data [32].

Several systematic reviews have aggregated the broad evidence linking greater continuity of primary care to lower mortality, reduced hospitalizations, lower costs, and higher patient satisfaction [33, 34]. However, the benefits of continuity may be greatest for older adults given their higher needs for care coordination and chronic disease management [35]. For seniors specifically, greater continuity has been associated with higher receipt of recommended preventive cancer screening and immunizations [36]. Among older adults with chronic conditions like diabetes, continuity relates to improved disease control through regular primary care monitoring [37]. For low-income seniors, having a regular physician correlates to lower likelihood of unmet needs and emergency department use [38, 39].

In regard to hospital care, a landmark study found elderly patients seeing the same primary care physician had lower rates of hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) chronic conditions like COPD, suggesting timely outpatient care avoided costly acute care [40, 41]. Similarly, another analysis found greater primary care continuity linked to reduced 30-day readmissions among chronically ill seniors [33, 42]. Having a continuous partnership with a provider who understands patients’ goals may facilitate transitions home and prevent complications requiring rehospitalization [43].

This evidence indicates continuity in the outpatient setting may enable proactive disease management for older patients with complex needs, avoiding downstream emergency and inpatient services [44]. However, gaps remain regarding continuity’s impact on critical patient-centered outcomes like functional status, quality of life, and satisfaction with care. Assessing continuity’s role in overall well-being is increasingly essential given the focus on holistic care for aging populations [45, 46].

Initiatives such as the patient-centered medical home model have sought to promote sustained, high-quality relationships between older patients and primary care providers [47]. Core features of medical homes include enhancing access through expanded hours, care coordination using integrated teams, and patient engagement in shared decision-making [48]. By offering these augmented services, the medical home aims to facilitate longitudinal relationships over time.

Evidence suggests medical homes may improve continuity for seniors. One study found patients at small practices transformed into medical homes reported growth in continuity compared to the control group [49]. Another analysis found joining a medical home correlated to increased annual visits, suggesting improved continuity, for patients with diabetes [37]. Overall, the integration of services and patient-centered focus inherent in the medical home shows potential to strengthen continuity of care for older individuals.

This systematic review aimed to provide timely and critical insights into the benefits of continuity and sustainability of care for older adults. Findings may support initiatives to improve continuity within age-friendly medical homes and help shape the implementation of emerging care models. Results can inform training of current and future family physicians on best practices in cultivating longitudinal relationships with older patients. This review aimed to identify remaining knowledge gaps to guide health services researchers. Ultimately, optimizing continuity of care will lead to a healthier aging population, improved quality of life for seniors, and more responsible use of finite healthcare resources.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Search strategy and selection criteria

This systematic review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure a rigorous, transparent, and comprehensive methodology [50]. The research protocol, in line with PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) statement recommendations [51] and registered with PROSPERO to provide an accessible and detailed account of the review process (CRD42023491239).

A comprehensive search strategy was implemented to explore the literature related to continuity and sustainability of care in family medicine and its impact on the quality of life and health outcomes of older populations. Key databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched. The strategy incorporated a mix of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text keywords tailored to capture the broadest spectrum of relevant studies. Terms included "Family Medicine," "Continuity of Care," "Sustainable Healthcare," "Quality of Life," "Health Outcomes," and "Older Populations.". the detailed search strategy described in the Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. The detailed search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299283.t001

The search aimed to be as inclusive as possible while retaining specificity to the topic of interest. It was finalized on a specific date to ensure a current and comprehensive collection of relevant literature.

Following the initial search, duplicates were removed, and the remaining articles were screened based on title, abstract, and full-text assessment. Inclusion criteria focused on studies specifically investigating continuity and sustainability in family medicine and its correlation with quality of life and health outcomes in older adults. Exclusion criteria included studies not pertinent to the research questions, non-English language studies, reviews, conference abstracts, and those lacking original data. Any discrepancies during the selection process were resolved through discussion and consensus among the review team.

2.2 Data extraction

Data extraction aimed to gather comprehensive information pertinent to the continuity and sustainability of care in family medicine. This included study characteristics, descriptions of care models, patient demographics, quality of life metrics, and health outcomes. The review prioritized extracting data that directly correlated with the older population’s experience with continuous and sustainable care models. Authors of the primary studies were contacted as necessary for additional data or clarification. In the initial search through the databases, a total of 5316 papers were found. After removing duplicates, 485 papers were screened based on their title and abstract, with 213 being excluded. Of the remaining 185papers, 14 were ultimately selected for the full-text review. The PRISMA flow diagram is provided in (S1 Fig).

2.3 Quality assessment

The methodological quality and risk of bias of all included studies were rigorously evaluated using a modified version of the ROBVIS2 tool. ROBVIS2 it was developed during the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon, This web app is built on the ROBVIS R package [52]. Discrepancies in quality assessments were resolved through discussion to reach a consensus among the review team.

2.3.1 Assessment of potential biases in reviewed articles.

In our systematic review, we meticulously assessed potential biases in the included articles using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized interventions and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for randomized trials, where applicable. This comprehensive evaluation covered selection bias by examining participant selection methods and baseline comparability, performance bias through the implementation of interventions and blinding of participants and providers, detection bias by assessing the blinding of outcome assessors and uniform application of outcome measures, and attrition bias by analyzing follow-up completeness and data handling. Reporting bias was also scrutinized to ensure all expected outcomes were duly reported, alongside a consideration of publication bias to counteract the tendency for publishing studies with positive results preferentially. This thorough assessment of biases was crucial for ensuring the reliability and validity of our findings, providing a clear, critical evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies, and highlighting areas necessitating further investigation to enrich our understanding of the impact of continuity and sustainability of care on the health outcomes and quality of life in older populations.

2.4 Data analysis

The review employed both narrative and thematic analysis methods to synthesize the data:

Narrative Synthesis: This qualitative approach provided a detailed summary and interpretation of the findings from the included studies. It emphasized understanding the various aspects of continuity and sustainability in family medicine and their effects on the quality of life and health outcomes in older populations. The narrative synthesis aimed to highlight significant trends, differences, and implications for healthcare providers and policymakers.

Thematic Analysis: Through a systematic identification of themes and patterns across the studies, this method facilitated a deeper understanding of the nuances and variations in care models. It involved coding and categorizing findings to explore the effectiveness, challenges, and best practices related to sustaining continuous care in family medicine. Thematic analysis allowed for a more nuanced and detailed exploration of the data, providing insights into the complexities and dynamics of sustainable healthcare for older adults.

Through these methodologies, the review aims to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how continuity and sustainability in family medicine affect the quality of life and health outcomes of older populations, offering valuable insights and recommendations for practice and policy.

3. Results

3.1. The quality assessment

The risk of bias assessment for the included studies [53–66] presents a varied landscape regarding the quality and reliability of the evidence provided (S2 Fig). The study by Asma et al., 2020, stands out with a low risk across all domains, suggesting a high level of methodological rigor and reliability in its findings. This is indicative of a well-structured study design, likely including proper randomization and adherence to intervention protocols, comprehensive data collection without significant missing outcomes, precise outcome measurement, and unbiased reporting of results.

In contrast, the study by Zulman et al., 2019, exhibits a high overall risk of bias, raising concerns about the strength of its conclusions. With high bias due to deviations from intended interventions and concerns in multiple other domains, the internal validity of this study may be compromised, potentially due to changes in the intervention as delivered, issues with data completeness, and the objectivity of outcome measurements. The implications of this study’s results should be considered cautiously within the context of its methodological limitations.

Several studies, including those by Grace Sum et al., 2021, Nyweide et al., 2013, Bayliss et al., 2015, Halima Amjad et al., 2016, Aaron Jones et al., 2020, Almaawiy et al., 2014, Nyweide & Bynum, 2017, Menec et al., 2006, Serina et al., 2023, and Lan & Chen, 2022, demonstrate some concerns in the randomization process, which could indicate potential limitations in the random allocation of participants or non-random study designs. However, they generally show low bias in the other domains, suggesting that the conduct of the study and the reporting of results were mostly consistent with the research protocol.

Li Yang et al., 2022, and Bayliss et al., 2015, are noted to have some concerns regarding the bias due to missing outcome data, which could affect the completeness and applicability of the data analysis. However, the low bias in other domains for these studies indicates a reasonable level of confidence in most aspects of their methodology.

The overall risk of bias for the majority of studies falls into the ’some concerns’ or ’low’ categories, which suggests that while there may be areas of improvement, the evidence provided by these studies contributes valuable insights into the field. However, each study’s limitations must be acknowledged when interpreting their findings and applying their findings to practice or further research.

3.2. Main outcomes

Based on the studies provided in the extraction table (S1 Dataset) let’s explore four themes that emerge from these works. Each theme will be discussed with citations to relevant studies from the table.

3.2.1 Impact of continuity and coordination of care.

Studies have demonstrated that continuity and coordination of care, especially for older adults with complex needs or chronic conditions, significantly influence health outcomes. Grace Sum et al. (2021) and Bayliss et al. (2015) both highlight the importance of continuity in care models like the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and general continuity of care indices. These studies found associations between continuity of care and improved satisfaction, decreased hospitalization, and better management of chronic conditions [53, 58]. Similarly, Aaron Jones et al. (2020) observed that higher continuity of both primary and specialty physician care was associated with reduced risks of emergency department visits and hospital admissions [60].

3.2.2 Role of telehealth in managing chronic conditions.

Telehealth has emerged as a critical component in managing chronic diseases, particularly in remote or underserved populations. Lan & Chen’s (2022) study on a telehealth care system for chronic disease management showed that technology acceptance and perceived ease of use significantly influence the adoption and effectiveness of telehealth interventions [66]. Similarly, Serina et al. (2023) discussed the perception of telehealth efficacy among physicians for special populations of older adults, indicating its varying effectiveness based on the type of care needed [65]. These studies underscore the potential of telehealth in enhancing access and continuity of care.

3.2.3 Quality of life and patient activation.

Several studies have focused on the outcomes related to the quality of life and patient activation as a result of different care models. Grace Sum et al. (2021) found marginal improvements in needs satisfaction and significant impacts on patient activation measures following the implementation of the PCMH model [53]. Li Yang et al. (2022) reported improvements in the quality of life and various abilities of patients and caregivers in a comprehensive intervention trial for Alzheimer’s Disease [57]. These findings suggest that focused interventions can lead to improvements in both the physical and psychological domains of patients and caregivers.

3.2.4 Health outcomes and system utilization.

The relationship between care models and health system utilization is a crucial area of study, particularly in understanding how interventions can reduce the burden on healthcare systems. Nyweide et al. (2013) and Almaawiy et al. (2014) both provide evidence that higher continuity of care is associated with a lower rate of preventable hospitalizations and decreased acute care visits in the last weeks of life, respectively [55, 61]. Additionally, Halima Amjad et al. (2016) found that lower continuity of care is associated with higher rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, and health care spending [59]. These studies collectively highlight the potential for improved care coordination to reduce unnecessary healthcare utilization and costs.

These themes reflect the multifaceted nature of healthcare delivery and its impact on older populations, from the importance of continuity and coordination in care, the emerging role of telehealth, the effects on quality of life and patient activation, to the implications for health outcomes and system utilization. Each study contributes to a broader understanding of how different models and technologies can be effectively employed to improve the care and well-being of older adults.

4. Discussion

Continuity and sustainability are critical foundations for delivering high-quality, person-centered care to meet the diverse needs of aging populations. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the impacts of continuous, sustainable care models in family medicine on outcomes for older adults. The studies demonstrated beneficial associations between continuity of care and reduced acute healthcare utilization, improved chronic disease management, higher satisfaction, and better quality of life. However, fully realizing the benefits of continuous, sustainable care requires transforming fragmented systems through thoughtful design, system-level support, and a relationship-based philosophy of care.

4.1 Continuity of care: A core component of high-quality primary care

Continuity of care with a primary provider and care team is a vital marker of healthcare quality that enables personalized, proactive care aligned with patient goals and values [67]. This review reinforces extensive prior evidence showing greater informational, management, and relational continuity correlates to numerous benefits for patients with complex needs, including older adults. These span reduced hospitalizations and complications of chronic illness improved preventive service delivery, higher satisfaction, and better quality of life [68–71].

Seeing the same provider who knows their priorities and history allows older patients to develop trusting relationships and communicate needs more effectively [72]. Consistent evidence-based monitoring and coordination of services aligned with patient preferences enables better self-management and rapid response to deterioration, avoiding crises [73, 74]. Smooth information transfer across settings prevents "falling through the cracks" during care transitions [75, 76]. At its core, continuity enables providers to see the "whole person" and tailor care accordingly over time [77].

While informational continuity has improved through electronic records, relational and management continuity remain challenged by fragmented systems. Declining primary care time and increasing complexity of care make realizing the benefits of continuity difficult despite clear advantages [78]. Reestablishing continuous healing relationships as the bedrock of care delivery should remain a top policy priority to support healthy aging [79].

Multi-pronged approaches like patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) show promise in strengthening continuity and coordination [80]. Key elements include cultivating sustained clinician-patient partnerships, care planning, integrated care teams, and enhanced access such as telehealth or expanded hours [63, 81]. But while medical homes emphasize relationship-centeredness, implementation is uneven, and many lack needed resources [82].

Truly prioritizing continuity requires greater investment in primary care infrastructure and workforce [67, 83]. This encompasses care coordination staffing, smaller panel sizes, and reduced administrative burden to allow unhurried visits focused on patients’ goals and building relationships [84]. Continuity should be measured and valued as a vital sign. Payment and delivery reforms must move from rewarding discrete services to enabling sustained clinician-patient partnerships [69, 85].

Fostering continuity also requires reducing barriers patients face in consistently accessing care [86]. This includes transportation, flexible scheduling, language access, care navigation, and family caregiver supports–elements that facilitate ongoing engagement. Continuity and community health are interdependent; lasting partnerships connecting clinical and community resources can help address social determinants underlying disease [87].

Ultimately more time, trust, and resources are essential to nurturing continuous healing relationships in primary care [88]. But the value proposition is clear. Continuity provides the foundation for proactive, coordinated, and patient-centered care required for 21st century population health. It should remain central to all efforts to improve care quality, experience, and sustainability for aging populations [89].

4.2 Care coordination and team-based models

While primary care continuity provides crucial foundations, optimizing outcomes for complex older adults also requires expanded care coordination and integration [89]. Multidisciplinary teams who share information and collaborate cross-sectorally can enhance care continuity even when patients see multiple individual physicians [90].

For homebound seniors with intensive needs, programs providing coordinated home-based medical care and social supports have demonstrated reduced hospitalizations, nursing home use, and costs [91]. Models like Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE) integrate geriatrics expertise into primary care and offer care management by a nurse practitioner and social worker [92].

For high-risk patients, Transitional Care Models coordinate evidence-based care during hospital-to-home transitions via home visits, telehealth, and linking with community services–resulting in fewer rehospitalizations [93]. Embedding social workers in primary care practices helps bridge medical and social needs. And accountable care organizations (ACOs) that share responsibility for entire populations incentivize coordinated, high-value care across settings [94].

These models underscore that while primary care continuity provides the longitudinal relationship, adequately caring for older adults with complex biomedical and social needs requires wider team-based coordination [95]. This review also highlighted the value of care management home visits, cross-setting follow-up, and help navigating systems for high-risk veterans [54].

Still, challenges to team-based care remain, including reimbursement systems that fail to adequately support care management and coordination staff [96]. Colocation and health information exchange facilitate collaboration, but many small practices lack capital and technical assistance for integration [97]. Delivery and payment reforms should accelerate team-based infrastructure development in primary care including provisions for shared complex care management [98, 99].

4.3. Health information technology as an enabler

Thoughtfully designed health information technology (HIT) is also essential to enable both informational continuity and care coordination across settings [100]. Universal electronic health records tethered by health information exchange networks can close communication gaps between primary care homes and specialists [101]. Digital interoperability allows up-to-date synthesizable data to follow patients [102].

Virtual technology also increasingly bridges geographical and mobility barriers to continuity. Telehealth expands access and conveniences, as well as enabling remote monitoring of chronic conditions to augment in-person primary care [103]. "Virtual medical homes" provide continuity via digital coordination tools, patient portals, and e-consult platforms linking primary care and specialists [104]. Still, thoughtfulness is required to avoid fragmentation through virtual care [105]. Telehealth should synergize with, not replace, longitudinal human relationships.

HIT offers tools to advance continuity and coordination but is not a panacea. Poor design and implementation stymies progress. Core challenges of relationships and trust require a human focus [106]. Providers face burnout from clerical burdens and usability issues [120]. And patients–especially older adults–may lack digital access or literacy for optimal engagement. HIT integration must carefully balance human needs, clinical workflows, and technical capacities to avoid disruption [107].

While HIT can enable continuity and coordination at scale, it is not a substitute. Progress requires improving technology and its implementation, while simultaneously doubling down on the human foundations of continuous healing relationships and person-centered care planning [108]. Used thoughtfully, HIT provides infrastructure to nurture continuity–but it must serve humanistic healthcare values.

4.4 Sustainability and the long view

Realizing the benefits of continuity and coordination requires a long-term sustainability lens.Fragmentation stems partly from systems valuing episodic interventions over lifelong relationships [109]. Innovations like patient-centered medical homes often lack staying power, undermined by waning resources [110].

Sustainable care requires steadfast rather than sporadic commitment to continuity and relationships. This means consistent investment in primary care capacity and workforce [111]. But it also involves broader shifts from short-term utilization metrics toward long-term health outcomes that capture benefits over generations. Value-based payment incentivizing population health helps realign systems [112].

Taking the long view also compels addressing deeper roots of fragmentation like inequities and social determinants. Lasting gains require not just improving healthcare delivery but also strengthening communities [113]. Continuity and community health are interdependent [114].

Environmental sustainability further influences care systems and social determinants [115]. Climate change impacts food security, heat exposure, infectious diseases, disabilities, and mental health [116]. Bioethics highlight sustainability through responsible resource stewardship [117, 118]. An ethics of care prioritizes sustaining relationships and reducing suffering for future generations [119].

To build sustainable care for aging populations, continuity must intertwine with public health and social justice [120].

The path forward is challenging but clear. Continuity, relationships, and care integration remain vital to excellent geriatric care delivery [121]. But sustainable progress requires courageous systems change and social investment [122]. With focus, partnerships, and public engagement, a more relationship-centered, equitable, and resilient future is possible.

4.5 Continuity of care and patient safety

Continuity of care stands as a pivotal element in the matrix of patient safety, particularly within the domain of family medicine catering to older populations [123]. It establishes a foundation for a sustained and comprehensive understanding of the patient’s health history, preferences, and nuanced needs over time. This continuous thread of familiarity significantly mitigates the risk of medical errors, which are more likely to occur in fragmented systems where patients are seen by multiple, uncoordinated providers [124]. The seamless flow of information that continuity of care ensures can prevent prescription errors, duplicate testing, and conflicting treatments, thereby safeguarding patients from potential harm. Moreover, the ongoing relationship built on trust and mutual understanding enhances patient engagement and compliance, pivotal factors in the effective management of chronic conditions and the prevention of acute episodes that could compromise patient safety [125].

Furthermore, the link between continuity of care and patient safety extends into the broader realm of health outcomes and quality of life for older adults. Through the lens of continuity, healthcare providers can more accurately tailor interventions to the individual’s unique health trajectory, optimizing treatment plans and proactively adjusting care to meet evolving needs [126]. This personalized approach not only improves the effectiveness of care but also contributes to a greater sense of security and satisfaction among patients, vital components of quality of life. In essence, continuity of care acts as a safeguard, reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency visits, which are fraught with risks for older adults [127]. By prioritizing and enhancing continuity of care, healthcare systems can thus make significant strides toward a safer, more patient-centered care model that actively contributes to the well-being and safety of the elderly population, embodying the true essence of comprehensive healthcare [128, 129].

5. Conclusion

This systematic review aimed to explore the impacts of continuity and sustainability in family medicine care models on quality of life and health outcomes for older adults. The 14 studies included provide consistent evidence that greater informational, management, and relational continuity of care correlates to reduced healthcare utilization, improved chronic disease management, higher satisfaction, and better quality of life in aging populations. However, fully realizing the benefits of continuous, sustainable care requires addressing systemic fragmentation through thoughtful design, resources, and a relationship-centered philosophy.

Key findings of this review reinforce that continuity should remain a vital sign and central aim of high-quality primary care. Sustained personalized relationships between older patients and primary care providers facilitate proactive, coordinated, and patient-centered care aligned with everyone’s priorities. This in turn appears to enable better health maintenance, avoidance of complications requiring hospitalization, and optimization of abilities and quality of life.

Thoughtful system enhancements like patient-centered medical homes, telehealth, care coordination programs, and health information exchange can strengthen continuity and extend its benefits. But technological integration must serve human relationships and meaningfully engage diverse patients. Without attending to relationships and personhood, care risks becoming transactional and fragmented.

At the same time, challenges remain in overcoming ingrained systemic barriers and moving from isolated interventions to lasting transformation. Truly valuing continuity and relationships requires expanded investment in primary care capacity and trusting partnerships. Payment and delivery models must shift focus from discrete utilization metrics toward enabling longitudinal clinician-patient relationships and reducing inequities.

Sustainability involves steadfast rather than sporadic commitment to the foundations of primary care, relationships, and community. It compels aligning health systems with the broader public good including population health, equity, and environmental sustainability. Lasting solutions require courageous systems change and social investment.

This review has limitations including heterogeneity among relatively few studies, self-reported data, and variations in quality and bias risk assessments. The populations and interventions evaluated were also not fully generalizable. Nonetheless, the consistency of observed associations adds to a substantive body of literature on the benefits of continuity.

In conclusion, key implications and recommendations include:

  • Continuity of care remains a vital marker of primary care quality and should be universally measured and valued. Policy and payment reforms must incentivize relationship-centered practice.
  • Medical homes show potential to strengthen informational, management, and relational continuity but require adequate, sustained financial support and tailored implementation.
  • Thoughtfully designed telehealth and HIT tools can augment continuity but should enhance, not replace, human relationships and clinical encounters. These technologies require careful integration to avoid new fragmentation.
  • Care coordination models like home-based primary care, GRACE, and transitional care can enhance outcomes for complex older adults when layered upon continuous relationships with a primary clinician and team. Seamless bi-directional communication between these care team members is essential.
  • Truly patient-centered care requires understanding and aligning with each older individual’s priorities. Decision-making should be guided by patient values, goals, and preferences.
  • High-functioning teams require shared leadership with patients, caregivers, and communities to implement care models focused on whole person health and well-being.
  • Expanding the clinical workforce through non-physician team members, telehealth providers, and community health workers builds capacity to support coordinated, continuous care tailored to aging adults’ needs.
  • Payment and delivery reforms should accelerate team-based infrastructure development in primary care including provisions for shared complex care management and improving social determinants of health.
  • A long-term sustainability lens focused on lasting relationships, resilience, and the public good is critical to overcoming fragmentation. Leaders must champion transformative systems change.

Overall, continuity, coordination, and sustainability of patient-centered care models are crucial for improving quality of life and health outcomes for the aging population. While challenges remain, progress toward more humane, equitable, and integrated care is possible through courageous practice transformation and system redesign grounded in humanistic values. This review highlights family medicine’s central role in sustaining continuous healing relationships to enable healthy aging. But realizing this vision requires valuing what matters most—the person behind each patient.

References

  1. 1. Mosadeghrad AM. Factors Influencing Healthcare Service Quality. Int J Heal Policy Manag [Internet]. 2014;3(2):77–89. Available from: http://www.ijhpm.com/article_2864_607.html pmid:25114946
  2. 2. O’Malley AS, Rich EC, Maccarone A, DesRoches CM, Reid RJ. Disentangling the Linkage of Primary Care Features to Patient Outcomes: A Review of Current Literature, Data Sources, and Measurement Needs. J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2015 Aug 24;30(S3):576–85. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-015-3311-9 pmid:26105671
  3. 3. Whitman A, De Lew N, Chappel A, Aysola V, Zuckerman R, Sommers BD. Addressing Social Determinants of Health: Examples of Successful Evidence-Based Strategies and Current Federal Efforts. Assist Secr Plan Eval [Internet]. 2022;(April):1–30. Available from: https://www.aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/e2b650cd64cf84aae8ff0fae7474af82/SDOH-Evidence-Review.pdf
  4. 4. Damery S, Flanagan S, Combes G. Does integrated care reduce hospital activity for patients with chronic diseases? An umbrella review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2016 Nov 21;6(11):e011952. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011952 pmid:27872113
  5. 5. Al-Hanawi MK, Khan SA, Al-Borie HM. Healthcare human resource development in Saudi Arabia: emerging challenges and opportunities—a critical review. Public Health Rev [Internet]. 2019 Dec 27;40(1):1. Available from: https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-019-0112-4 pmid:30858991
  6. 6. Abdi S, Spann A, Borilovic J, de Witte L, Hawley M. Understanding the care and support needs of older people: a scoping review and categorisation using the WHO international classification of functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatr [Internet]. 2019 Dec 22;19(1):195. Available from: https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-019-1189-9 pmid:31331279
  7. 7. Amjad A, Kordel P, Fernandes G. A Review on Innovation in Healthcare Sector (Telehealth) through Artificial Intelligence. Sustainability [Internet]. 2023 Apr 14;15(8):6655. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6655
  8. 8. Shahzad M, Upshur R, Donnelly P, Bharmal A, Wei X, Feng P, et al. A population-based approach to integrated healthcare delivery: a scoping review of clinical care and public health collaboration. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2019 Dec 7;19(1):708. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7002-z pmid:31174501
  9. 9. Beard JR, Officer A, de Carvalho IA, Sadana R, Pot AM, Michel JP, et al. The World report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet [Internet]. 2016 May;387(10033):2145–54. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673615005164 pmid:26520231
  10. 10. Sixsmith J, Makita M, Menezes D, Cranwell M, Chau I, Smith M, et al. Enhancing Community Participation through Age-Friendly Ecosystems: A Rapid Realist Review. Geriatrics [Internet]. 2023 May 11;8(3):52. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2308-3417/8/3/52 pmid:37218832
  11. 11. Bazemore A, Petterson S, Peterson LE, Bruno R, Chung Y, Phillips RL. Higher Primary Care Physician Continuity is Associated With Lower Costs and Hospitalizations. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2018 Nov 12;16(6):492–7. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/lookup/doi/10.1370/afm.2308 pmid:30420363
  12. 12. Haggerty JL, Roberge D, Freeman GK, Beaulieu C. Experienced Continuity of Care When Patients See Multiple Clinicians: A Qualitative Metasummary. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2013 May 1;11(3):262–71. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/doi/10.1370/afm.1499 pmid:23690327
  13. 13. Health Quality Ontario. Continuity of care to optimize chronic disease management in the community setting: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser [Internet]. 2013;13(6):1–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24167540 pmid:24167540
  14. 14. Jackson C, Ball L. Continuity of care: Vital, but how do we measure and promote it? Aust J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2018 Oct 1;47(10):662–4. Available from: https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2018/october/continuity-of-care pmid:31195766
  15. 15. Murtagh S, McCombe G, Broughan J, Carroll Á, Casey M, Harrold Á, et al. Integrating Primary and Secondary Care to Enhance Chronic Disease Management: A Scoping Review. Int J Integr Care [Internet]. 2021 Feb 9;21(1). Available from: http://www.ijic.org/articles/10.5334/ijic.5508/ pmid:33613136
  16. 16. Bierman AS, Wang J, O’Malley PG, Moss DK. Transforming care for people with multiple chronic conditions: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s research agenda. Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2021 Oct 6;56(S1):973–9. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6773.13863 pmid:34378192
  17. 17. Elliott J, Stolee P, Boscart V, Giangregorio L, Heckman G. Coordinating care for older adults in primary care settings: understanding the current context. BMC Fam Pract [Internet]. 2018 Dec 7;19(1):137. Available from: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-018-0821-7 pmid:30086707
  18. 18. Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, Suman R. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sensors Int [Internet]. 2021;2:100117. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666351121000383 pmid:34806053
  19. 19. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, Jordan K, Leslie HH, Roder-DeWan S, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Heal [Internet]. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1196–252. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214109X18303863 pmid:30196093
  20. 20. Bakhsh E, Shaban M, Al Subaie S, Al Moshary M, AlSheef M. Exploring the Clinical Efficacy of Venous Thromboembolism Management in Saudi Arabian Hospitals: An Insight into Patient Outcomes. J Pers Med [Internet]. 2023 Mar 31;13(4):612. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/13/4/612 pmid:37108998
  21. 21. Maarsingh OR, Henry Y, van de Ven PM, Deeg DJ. Continuity of care in primary care and association with survival in older people: a 17-year prospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2016 Aug;66(649):e531–9. Available from: https://bjgp.org/lookup/doi/10.3399/bjgp16X686101 pmid:27324627
  22. 22. Haggerty JL. Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ [Internet]. 2003 Nov 22;327(7425):1219–21. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/ pmid:14630762
  23. 23. Agarwal G, Crooks VA. The nature of informational continuity of care in general practice. Br J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2008 Nov 1;58(556):e17–24. Available from: https://bjgp.org/lookup/doi/10.3399/bjgp08X342624 pmid:19000395
  24. 24. Beadles CA, Voils CI, Crowley MJ, Farley JF, Maciejewski ML. Continuity of medication management and continuity of care: Conceptual and operational considerations. SAGE Open Med [Internet]. 2014 Jan 1;2:205031211455926. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050312114559261 pmid:26770750
  25. 25. Ljungholm L, Edin-Liljegren A, Ekstedt M, Klinga C. What is needed for continuity of care and how can we achieve it?–Perceptions among multiprofessionals on the chronic care trajectory. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2022 Dec 23;22(1):686. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-022-08023-0 pmid:35606787
  26. 26. Waibel S, Vargas I, Coderch J, Vázquez ML. Relational continuity with primary and secondary care doctors: a qualitative study of perceptions of users of the Catalan national health system. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2018 Dec 10;18(1):257. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3042-9 pmid:29631622
  27. 27. Chen CC, Chiang YC, Lin YC, Cheng SH. Continuity of Care and Coordination of Care: Can they Be Differentiated? Int J Integr Care [Internet]. 2023 Feb 17;23:10. Available from: http://ojs3.up:8000/index.php/up-j-ijic/article/view/6467 pmid:36819617
  28. 28. Vehko T, Jolanki O, Aalto AM, Sinervo T. How do health care workers manage a patient with multiple care needs from both health and social care services?–A vignette study. Int J Care Coord [Internet]. 2018 Jun 21;21(1–2):5–14. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053434517744070 pmid:29881629
  29. 29. Hull SA, Williams C, Schofield P, Boomla K, Ashworth M. Measuring continuity of care in general practice: a comparison of two methods using routinely collected data. Br J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2022 Jun 28;BJGP.2022.0043. Available from: http://bjgp.org/lookup/doi/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0043 pmid:35995578
  30. 30. Bowen JL, Hirsh D, Aagaard E, Kaminetzky CP, Smith M, Hardman J, et al. Advancing Educational Continuity in Primary Care Residencies. Acad Med [Internet]. 2015 May;90(5):587–93. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/00001888-201505000-00017
  31. 31. Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi A. Patient Satisfaction Survey as a Tool Towards Quality Improvement. Oman Med J [Internet]. 2014 Jan 15;29(1):3–7. Available from: http://www.omjournal.org/fultext_PDF.aspx?DetailsID=467&type=fultext pmid:24501659
  32. 32. Haggerty JL, Roberge D, Freeman GK, Beaulieu C, Breton M. Validation of a Generic Measure of Continuity of Care: When Patients Encounter Several Clinicians. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2012 Sep 1;10(5):443–51. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/doi/10.1370/afm.1378 pmid:22966108
  33. 33. Dyer SM, Suen J, Williams H, Inacio MC, Harvey G, Roder D, et al. Impact of relational continuity of primary care in aged care: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr [Internet]. 2022 Dec 14;22(1):579. Available from: https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-022-03131-2 pmid:35836118
  34. 34. Schuettig W, Sundmacher L. The impact of ambulatory care spending, continuity and processes of care on ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations. Eur J Heal Econ [Internet]. 2022 Nov 29;23(8):1329–40. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01428-y pmid:35091856
  35. 35. Oh SW. The Role of Continuity of Care in the Management of Chronic Disease. Korean J Fam Med [Internet]. 2022 Jul 20;43(4):207–8. Available from: http://kjfm.or.kr/journal/view.php?doi=10.4082/kjfm.43.4E pmid:35903043
  36. 36. Musa D, Schulz R, Harris R, Silverman M, Thomas SB. Trust in the Health Care System and the Use of Preventive Health Services by Older Black and White Adults. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2009 Jul;99(7):1293–9. Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2007.123927 pmid:18923129
  37. 37. Chan KS, Wan EYF, Chin WY, Cheng WHG, Ho MK, Yu EYT, et al. Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract [Internet]. 2021 Dec 3;22(1):145. Available from: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-021-01493-x pmid:34217212
  38. 38. Quail JM, Addona V, Wolfson C, Podoba JE, Lévesque LY, Dupuis J. Association of unmet need with self-rated health in a community dwelling cohort of disabled seniors 75 years of age and over. Eur J Ageing [Internet]. 2007 Feb 27;4(1):45–55. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10433-007-0042-8
  39. 39. Yamada T, Chen CC, Murata C, Hirai H, Ojima T, Kondo K, et al. Access Disparity and Health Inequality of the Elderly: Unmet Needs and Delayed Healthcare. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2015 Feb 3;12(2):1745–72. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/2/1745 pmid:25654774
  40. 40. Marques AP, Montilla DER, Almeida W da S de, Andrade CLT de. Hospitalization of older adults due to ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Rev Saude Publica [Internet]. 2014 Oct;48(5):817–26. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102014000500817&lng=en&tlng=en
  41. 41. McCall N, Harlow J, Dayhoff D. Rates of Hospitalization for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions in the Medicare+Choice Population. Health Care Financ Rev [Internet]. 2001;22(3):127–45. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25372877 pmid:25372877
  42. 42. Swanson JO, Vogt V, Sundmacher L, Hagen TP, Moger TA. Continuity of care and its effect on readmissions for COPD patients: A comparative study of Norway and Germany. Health Policy (New York) [Internet]. 2018 Jul;122(7):737–45. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168851018301623 pmid:29933893
  43. 43. Kripalani S, Theobald CN, Anctil B, Vasilevskis EE. Reducing Hospital Readmission Rates: Current Strategies and Future Directions. Annu Rev Med [Internet]. 2014 Jan 14;65(1):471–85. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-med-022613-090415 pmid:24160939
  44. 44. Hochman M, Asch SM. Disruptive Models in Primary Care: Caring for High-Needs, High-Cost Populations. J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2017 Apr 27;32(4):392–7. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-016-3945-2 pmid:28243870
  45. 45. Woo BFY, Lee JXY, Tam WWS. The impact of the advanced practice nursing role on quality of care, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost in the emergency and critical care settings: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health [Internet]. 2017 Dec 11;15(1):63. Available from: http://human-resources-health.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12960-017-0237-9 pmid:28893270
  46. 46. Shaban M, Habib N, Helmy I, Mohammed HH. Dehydration risk factors and outcomes in older people in rural areas. Front Nurs [Internet]. 2022 Dec 20;9(4):395–403. Available from: https://www.sciendo.com/article/10.2478/fon-2022-0050
  47. 47. Sinaiko AD, Landrum MB, Meyers DJ, Alidina S, Maeng DD, Friedberg MW, et al. Synthesis Of Research On Patient-Centered Medical Homes Brings Systematic Differences Into Relief. Health Aff [Internet]. 2017 Mar;36(3):500–8. Available from: http://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1235 pmid:28264952
  48. 48. Ginting ML, Wong CH, Lim ZZB, Choo RWM, Carlsen SCH, Sum G, et al. A Patient-Centred Medical Home Care Model for Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Singapore: A Mixed-Method Study on Patient’s Care Experience. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2022 Apr 14;19(8):4778. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4778 pmid:35457642
  49. 49. Fishman PA, Johnson EA, Coleman K, Larson EB, Hsu C, Ross TR, et al. Impact on Seniors of the Patient-Centered Medical Home: Evidence From a Pilot Study. Gerontologist [Internet]. 2012 Oct 1;52(5):703–11. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/geront/gnr158 pmid:22421916
  50. 50. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ [Internet]. 2021 Mar 29;n71. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.n71
  51. 51. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ [Internet]. 2015 Jan 2;349(jan02 1):g7647–g7647. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.g7647 pmid:25555855
  52. 52. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments. Res Synth Methods [Internet]. 2021 Jan 6;12(1):55–61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411 pmid:32336025
  53. 53. Almaawiy U, Pond GR, Sussman J, Brazil K, Seow H. Are family physician visits and continuity of care associated with acute care use at end-of-life? A population-based cohort study of homecare cancer patients. Palliat Med [Internet]. 2014 Feb 18;28(2):176–83. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269216313493125 pmid:23779252
  54. 54. Amjad H, Carmichael D, Austin AM, Chang CH, Bynum JPW. Continuity of Care and Health Care Utilization in Older Adults With Dementia in Fee-for-Service Medicare. JAMA Intern Med [Internet]. 2016 Sep 1;176(9):1371–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454945 pmid:27454945
  55. 55. Bayliss EA, Ellis JL, Shoup JA, Zeng C, McQuillan DB, Steiner JF. Effect of Continuity of Care on Hospital Utilization for Seniors With Multiple Medical Conditions in an Integrated Health Care System. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2015 Mar 1;13(2):123–9. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/doi/10.1370/afm.1739
  56. 56. Yang L, Xuan C, Yu C, Jin X, Zheng P, Yan J. Effects of comprehensive intervention on life quality among the elderly with Alzheimer Disease and their caregivers based on mixed models. Nurs Open [Internet]. 2022 Mar 14;9(2):1412–22. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.917 pmid:33988909
  57. 57. Nyweide DJ, Anthony DL, Bynum JPW, Strawderman RL, Weeks WB, Casalino LP, et al. Continuity of Care and the Risk of Preventable Hospitalization in Older Adults. JAMA Intern Med [Internet]. 2013 Nov 11;173(20):1879. Available from: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10059 pmid:24043127
  58. 58. Zulman DM, Chang ET, Wong A, Yoon J, Stockdale SE, Ong MK, et al. Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial. J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2019 May 16;34(S1):75–81. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-019-04965-0 pmid:31098977
  59. 59. Jones A, Bronskill SE, Seow H, Junek M, Feeny D, Costa AP. Associations between continuity of primary and specialty physician care and use of hospital-based care among community-dwelling older adults with complex care needs. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020;15(6):e0234205. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32559214 pmid:32559214
  60. 60. Gallo JJ, Morales KH, Bogner HR, Raue PJ, Zee J, Bruce ML, et al. Long term effect of depression care management on mortality in older adults: follow-up of cluster randomized clinical trial in primary care. BMJ [Internet]. 2013 Jun 5;346(jun05 2):f2570–f2570. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.f2570 pmid:23738992
  61. 61. Nyweide DJ, Bynum JPW. Relationship Between Continuity of Ambulatory Care and Risk of Emergency Department Episodes Among Older Adults. Ann Emerg Med [Internet]. 2017 Apr;69(4):407–415.e3. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0196064416303055 pmid:27520592
  62. 62. Serina PT, Davoodi NM, Guthrie KM, Merchant RC, Goldberg EM. Physician Views of Telehealth for Special Populations of Older Adults: Preliminary Findings. J Patient Exp [Internet]. 2023 Jan 14;10:237437352311604. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23743735231160418 pmid:36936379
  63. 63. Menec VH, Sirski M, Attawar D, Katz A. Does continuity of care with a family physician reduce hospitalizations among older adults? J Health Serv Res Policy [Internet]. 2006 Oct 1;11(4):196–201. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1258/135581906778476562 pmid:17018192
  64. 64. Lan YL, Chen HC. Telehealth care system for chronic disease management of middle-aged and older adults in remote areas. Health Informatics J [Internet]. 2022 Oct 29;28(4):146045822211418. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14604582221141835 pmid:36447304
  65. 65. Sum G, Ho SH, Lim ZZB, Chay J, Ginting ML, Tsao MA, et al. Impact of a patient-centered medical home demonstration on quality of life and patient activation for older adults with complex needs in Singapore. BMC Geriatr [Internet]. 2021 Dec 23;21(1):435. Available from: https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-021-02371-y pmid:34301199
  66. 66. Asma S, Batool N, Naderi N, Zareyan A. Assessment of the effect of patient’s education and telephone follow up by nurse on readmissions of the patients with heart failure. Iran J Crit Care Nurs [Internet]. 2020;6(1):29–38. Available from: https://jccnursing.com/article-1-242-en.pdf
  67. 67. Jeffers H, Baker M. Continuity of care: still important in modern-day general practice. Br J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2016 Aug;66(649):396–7. Available from: https://bjgp.org/lookup/doi/10.3399/bjgp16X686185 pmid:27481958
  68. 68. Shi L. The Impact of Primary Care: A Focused Review. Scientifica (Cairo) [Internet]. 2012;2012:1–22. Available from: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/scientifica/2012/432892/ pmid:24278694
  69. 69. Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, Fancott C, Bhatia P, Casalino S, et al. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci [Internet]. 2018 Dec 26;13(1):98. Available from: https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z pmid:30045735
  70. 70. Freeman , Hughes J. Continuity Care Patient Experience GP Inquiry Research Paper. King’s Fund. 2010;1–64.
  71. 71. Pereira Gray D, Sidaway-Lee K, White E, Thorne A, Evans P. Improving continuity: THE clinical challenge. InnovAiT Educ Inspir Gen Pract. 2016;9(10):635–45.
  72. 72. Kennedy BM, Rehman M, Johnson WD, Magee MB, Leonard R, Katzmarzyk PT. Healthcare Providers versus Patients’ Understanding of Health Beliefs and Values. Patient Exp J [Internet]. 2017;4(3):29–37. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29308429 pmid:29308429
  73. 73. Vincent JL, Einav S, Pearse R, Jaber S, Kranke P, Overdyk FJ, et al. Improving detection of patient deterioration in the general hospital ward environment. Eur J Anaesthesiol [Internet]. 2018 May;35(5):325–33. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00003643-201805000-00001 pmid:29474347
  74. 74. Cardona-Morrell M, Prgomet M, Turner RM, Nicholson M, Hillman K. Effectiveness of continuous or intermittent vital signs monitoring in preventing adverse events on general wards: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract [Internet]. 2016 Oct;70(10):806–24. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.12846 pmid:27582503
  75. 75. Abraham J, Nguyen V, Almoosa KF, Patel B, Patel VL. Falling through the cracks: information breakdowns in critical care handoff communication. AMIA. Annu Symp proceedings AMIA Symp [Internet]. 2011;2011:28–37. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22195052
  76. 76. Abraham J, Kannampallil T, Patel B, Almoosa K, Patel VL. Ensuring patient safety in care transitions: an empirical evaluation of a Handoff Intervention Tool. AMIA. Annu Symp proceedings AMIA Symp [Internet]. 2012;2012:17–26. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23304268
  77. 77. Tarrant C. Qualitative study of the meaning of personal care in general practice. BMJ [Internet]. 2003 Jun 12;326(7402):1310–1310. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.326.7402.1310
  78. 78. Hill AP, Freeman G. Promoting Continuity of Care in General Practice Promoting Continuity of Care in General Practice. General Practice. 2011. 42 p.
  79. 79. Cesari M, Sumi Y, Han ZA, Perracini M, Jang H, Briggs A, et al. Implementing care for healthy ageing. BMJ Glob Heal [Internet]. 2022 Feb;7(2):e007778. Available from: https://gh.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007778 pmid:35185014
  80. 80. Green EP, Wendland J, Carver MC, Hughes Rinker C, Mun SK. Lessons Learned from Implementing the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Int J Telemed Appl [Internet]. 2012;2012:1–8. Available from: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijta/2012/103685/ pmid:22969797
  81. 81. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, Benishek LE, Thompson D, Pronovost PJ, et al. Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol [Internet]. 2018 May;73(4):433–50. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/amp0000298 pmid:29792459
  82. 82. Franz BA, Murphy JW. The Patient-Centered Medical Home as a Community-based Strategy. Perm J [Internet]. 2017 Sep;21(3). Available from: http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/doi/10.7812/TPP/17-002 pmid:28746023
  83. 83. Starfield B, Horder J. Interpersonal continuity: old and new perspectives. Br J Gen Pract [Internet]. 2007 Jul;57(540):527–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17727744 pmid:17727744
  84. 84. Friedman A, Howard J, Shaw EK, Cohen DJ, Shahidi L, Ferrante JM. Facilitators and Barriers to Care Coordination in Patient-centered Medical Homes (PCMHs) from Coordinators’ Perspectives. J Am Board Fam Med [Internet]. 2016 Jan 1;29(1):90–101. Available from: http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/doi/10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150175 pmid:26769881
  85. 85. Ahmad N, Ellins J, Krelle H, Lawrie M. Person-centred care: from ideas to action: bringing together the evidence on shared decision making and self-management support. The Health Foundation. 2014. 97 p.
  86. 86. Molina-Mula J, Gallo-Estrada J. Impact of Nurse-Patient Relationship on Quality of Care and Patient Autonomy in Decision-Making. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Jan 29;17(3):835. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/835 pmid:32013108
  87. 87. Kuluski K, Ho JW, Hans PK, Nelson M LA. Community Care for People with Complex Care Needs: Bridging the Gap between Health and Social Care. Int J Integr Care [Internet]. 2017 Jul 21;17(4). Available from: http://www.ijic.org/articles/10.5334/ijic.2944/
  88. 88. Scott JG, Cohen D, DiCicco-Bloom B, Miller WL, Stange KC, Crabtree BF. Understanding Healing Relationships in Primary Care. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2008 Jul 1;6(4):315–22. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/doi/10.1370/afm.860 pmid:18626031
  89. 89. Epstein RM, Street RL. The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2011 Mar 1;9(2):100–3. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/doi/10.1370/afm.1239 pmid:21403134
  90. 90. Alderwick H, Hutchings A, Briggs A, Mays N. The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Apr 19;21(1):753. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-10630-1 pmid:33874927
  91. 91. Musich S, Wang SS, Hawkins K, Yeh CS. Homebound older adults: Prevalence, characteristics, health care utilization and quality of care. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap) [Internet]. 2015 Nov;36(6):445–50. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0197457215002347 pmid:26254815
  92. 92. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Buttar AB, Clark DO, Frank KI. Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE): A New Model of Primary Care for Low‐Income Seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc [Internet]. 2006 Jul 6;54(7):1136–41. Available from: https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00791.x pmid:16866688
  93. 93. Mansukhani RP, Bridgeman MB, Candelario D, Eckert LJ. Exploring Transitional Care: Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving Provider Communication and Reducing Readmissions. P T [Internet]. 2015 Oct;40(10):690–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26535025 pmid:26535025
  94. 94. Goodrich DE, Kilbourne AM, Nord KM, Bauer MS. Mental Health Collaborative Care and its Role in Primary Care Settings. Curr Psychiatry Rep [Internet]. 2013 Aug 24;15(8):383. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11920-013-0383-2 pmid:23881714
  95. 95. Couturier Y, Lanoue S, Karam M, Guillette M, Hudon C. Social workers coordination in primary healthcare for patients with complex needs: A scoping review. Int J Care Coord [Internet]. 2023 Mar 6;26(1):5–25. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20534345221122952
  96. 96. Zajac S, Woods A, Tannenbaum S, Salas E, Holladay CL. Overcoming Challenges to Teamwork in Healthcare: A Team Effectiveness Framework and Evidence-Based Guidance. Front Commun [Internet]. 2021 Mar 17;6. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445/full
  97. 97. Vest JR, Gamm LD. Health information exchange: persistent challenges and new strategies: Table 1. J Am Med Informatics Assoc [Internet]. 2010 May 1;17(3):288–94. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article-lookup/doi/10.1136/jamia.2010.003673
  98. 98. Bakhsh E, Alkhaldi M, Shaban M. Exploring the Link between Maternal Hematological Disorders during Pregnancy and Neurological Development in Newborns: Mixed Cohort Study. Life [Internet]. 2023 Oct 5;13(10):2014. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/13/10/2014 pmid:37895395
  99. 99. Bodenheimer T, Ghorob A, Willard-Grace R, Grumbach K. The 10 Building Blocks of High-Performing Primary Care. Ann Fam Med [Internet]. 2014 Mar 1;12(2):166–71. Available from: http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/doi/10.1370/afm.1616 pmid:24615313
  100. 100. Dowding DW, Russell D, Onorato N, Merrill JA. Technology Solutions to Support Care Continuity in Home Care: A Focus Group Study. J Healthc Qual [Internet]. 2018 Jul;40(4):236–46. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/01445442-201807000-00008 pmid:28885241
  101. 101. Quinn M, Forman J, Harrod M, Winter S, Fowler KE, Krein SL, et al. Electronic health records, communication, and data sharing: challenges and opportunities for improving the diagnostic process. Diagnosis [Internet]. 2019 Aug 27;6(3):241–8. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2018-0036/html pmid:30485175
  102. 102. Lehne M, Sass J, Essenwanger A, Schepers J, Thun S. Why digital medicine depends on interoperability. npj Digit Med [Internet]. 2019 Aug 20;2(1):79. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-019-0158-1 pmid:31453374
  103. 103. Gajarawala SN, Pelkowski JN. Telehealth Benefits and Barriers. J Nurse Pract [Internet]. 2021 Feb;17(2):218–21. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1555415520305158 pmid:33106751
  104. 104. Hurvitz EA, Whitney DG, Waldron-Perrine B, Ryan D, Haapala HJ, Schmidt M, et al. Navigating the Pathway to Care in Adults With Cerebral Palsy. Front Neurol [Internet]. 2021 Sep 16;12. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.734139/full pmid:34603186
  105. 105. Khera N, Knoedler M, Meier SK, TerKonda S, Williams RD, Wittich CM, et al. Payment and Coverage Parity for Virtual Care and In-Person Care: How Do We Get There? Telemed Reports [Internet]. 2023 May 1;4(1):100–8. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/tmr.2023.0014
  106. 106. Ray JM, Ratwani RM, Sinsky CA, Frankel RM, Friedberg MW, Powsner SM, et al. Six habits of highly successful health information technology: powerful strategies for design and implementation. J Am Med Informatics Assoc [Internet]. 2019 Oct 1;26(10):1109–14. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/26/10/1109/5527253 pmid:31265064
  107. 107. Thomas Craig KJ, Willis VC, Gruen D, Rhee K, Jackson GP. The burden of the digital environment: a systematic review on organization-directed workplace interventions to mitigate physician burnout. J Am Med Informatics Assoc [Internet]. 2021 Apr 23;28(5):985–97. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/28/5/985/6104341 pmid:33463680
  108. 108. Øvretveit J. Digital Technologies Supporting Person-Centered Integrated Care–A Perspective. Int J Integr Care [Internet]. 2017 Sep 25;17(4). Available from: http://www.ijic.org/articles/10.5334/ijic.3051/ pmid:29588629
  109. 109. Klinga C, Hasson H, Andreen Sachs M, Hansson J. Understanding the dynamics of sustainable change: A 20-year case study of integrated health and social care. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2018 Dec 4;18(1):400. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3061-6 pmid:29866114
  110. 110. De Marchis EH, Doekhie K, Willard-Grace R, Olayiwola JN. The Impact of the Patient-Centered Medical Home on Health Care Disparities: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Current Standards and Future Directions. Popul Health Manag [Internet]. 2019 Apr;22(2):99–107. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/pop.2018.0055 pmid:29920148
  111. 111. Khatri R, Endalamaw A, Erku D, Wolka E, Nigatu F, Zewdie A, et al. Continuity and care coordination of primary health care: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2023 Jul 13;23(1):750. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-023-09718-8 pmid:37443006
  112. 112. Engle RL, Mohr DC, Holmes SK, Seibert MN, Afable M, Leyson J, et al. Evidence-based practice and patient-centered care: Doing both well. Health Care Manage Rev [Internet]. 2021 Jul;46(3):174–84. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000254 pmid:31233424
  113. 113. Azevedo MJ. The State of Health System(s) in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. In 2017. p. 1–73. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-32564-4_1
  114. 114. Everett CM, Christy J, Morgan PA, Docherty SL, Smith VA, Anderson JB, et al. When is caring sharing? Primary care provider interdependence and continuity of care. JAAPA [Internet]. 2023 Jan;36(1):32–40. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/01.JAA.0000902896.51294.47 pmid:36484712
  115. 115. Mortimer F, Isherwood J, Wilkinson A, Vaux E. Sustainability in quality improvement: redefining value. Futur Healthc J [Internet]. 2018 Jun;5(2):88–93. Available from: https://www.rcpjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.7861/futurehosp.5-2-88 pmid:31098540
  116. 116. Mahmood J, Guinto RR. Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health: Emerging Evidence and Call to Action. Malaysian J Med Sci [Internet]. 2022 Oct 28;29(5):1–4. Available from: http://www.mjms.usm.my/MJMS29052022/MJMS29052022_01.pdf pmid:36474541
  117. 117. Jameton A, Pierce J. Environment and health: 8. Sustainable health care and emerging ethical responsibilities. CMAJ [Internet]. 2001 Feb 6;164(3):365–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11232139 pmid:11232139
  118. 118. Shaban M, Shaban MM, Ramadan O, Mohammed HH. Omicron: Egyptian nurses’ knowledge and attitudes. J Integr Nurs [Internet]. 2022;4(1):15. Available from: https://www.journalin.org/text.asp?2022/4/1/15/341125
  119. 119. Hassan S, Baiee HA, Shaban M, El M, Zaky S, Mahdi MT. Healthcare Providers ‘ Knowledge and Challenges They Face Regarding Growth Charts ‘ Utilization in Primary Healthcare Practice. Med J Babylon [Internet]. 2023;20(3):574–9. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/mjby/fulltext/2023/20030/healthcare_providers__knowledge_and_challenges.25.aspx
  120. 120. Portegijs E, Lee C, Zhu X. Activity-friendly environments for active aging: The physical, social, and technology environments. Front Public Heal [Internet]. 2023 Jan 11;10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1080148/full pmid:36711401
  121. 121. Baxter S, Johnson M, Chambers D, Sutton A, Goyder E, Booth A. The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2018 Dec 10;18(1):350. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3161-3 pmid:29747651
  122. 122. Mouritz M, Newman P, Newman R, Bryant J, Smith A, Olsen E. Leadership in Sustainability: Collective Wisdom, Conversations, Creativity, Contemplation and Courage, the Five Pillars of a Master’s Teaching Unit. Sustainability [Internet]. 2022 Apr 22;14(9):5070. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5070
  123. 123. Nowak DA, Sheikhan NY, Naidu SC, Kuluski K, Upshur REG. Why does continuity of care with family doctors matter? Can Fam Physician [Internet]. 2021 Sep 14;67(9):679–88. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/lookup/doi/10.46747/cfp.6709679
  124. 124. Latimer K. The Art of Care: A Report on the 2019 Vizient Connections Education Summit. Am J Med Qual [Internet]. 2020 Mar 20;35(1_suppl):5S–111S. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1062860620904721
  125. 125. Kim YS, Kim HS, Kim HA, Chun J, Kwak MJ, Kim MS, et al. Can patient and family education prevent medical errors? A descriptive study. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2020 Dec 31;20(1):269. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-020-05083-y pmid:32234042
  126. 126. Al-Azri M. Continuity of care and quality of care—inseparable twin. Oman Med J [Internet]. 2008 Jul;23(3):147–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22359703 pmid:22359703
  127. 127. Nicolet A, Al-Gobari M, Perraudin C, Wagner J, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Marti J. Association between continuity of care (COC), healthcare use and costs: what can we learn from claims data? A rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2022 Dec 16;22(1):658. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-022-07953-z pmid:35578226
  128. 128. Edgman-Levitan S, Schoenbaum SC. Patient-centered care: achieving higher quality by designing care through the patient’s eyes. Isr J Health Policy Res [Internet]. 2021 Dec 5;10(1):21. Available from: https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-021-00459-9 pmid:33673875
  129. 129. Shaban MM, Sharaa HM, Amer FGM, Shaban M. Effect of digital based nursing intervention on knowledge of self-care behaviors and self-efficacy of adult clients with diabetes. BMC Nurs [Internet]. 2024 Feb 20;23(1):130. Available from: https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-024-01787-2 pmid:38378505