ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Conocer la percepción de los médicos de atención primaria (AP) sobre la integración con cardiología (CA) mediante programas de continuidad asistencial. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal y multicéntrico en el que participaron 200 médicos de AP de todo el territorio nacional cumplimentando una encuesta cualitativa para evaluar el grado de integración con CA en prevención secundaria. Los médicos fueron agrupados según el grado de integración entre AP-CA. Resultados: Existe una buena percepción del grado de integración AP-CA, aunque mejor en los centros con mayor integración (74,0% vs. 60,0%; p=0,02) y en general se considera que ha mejorado (92,0% vs. 73,0%; p<0,001). Prácticamente todos los médicos de AP recibían el informe de alta. En la mayoría de los informes se realizaban recomendaciones para el seguimiento cardiológico y en AP, control de factores de riesgo y duración del tratamiento en prevención secundaria, sin diferencias según el grado de integración. El 55,8% de los informes contenían indicaciones sobre cuándo realizar el siguiente control analítico, un 63,6% información sobre el regreso a la vida laboral y un 51,3% sobre la reanudación de la actividad sexual. El papel sigue siendo el medio de comunicación dominante (75 vs. 84%; p=NS). La comunicación entre niveles asistenciales fue mayor en aquellos centros con mayor integración, así como la periodicidad de la comunicación y la satisfacción de los médicos (80,0% vs. 63,0%; p=0,005). Conclusiones: El grado de integración entre AP y CA en general es satisfactorio, pero los centros con mayor integración se benefician de una mayor comunicación y satisfacción
Objective: To determine the perception of Primary Care (PC) physicians on the integration with cardiology (CA) through continuity of healthcare programs. Material and methods: A cross-sectional and multicentre study was conducted, in which a total of 200 PC physicians from all over Spain completed a qualitative survey that evaluated the level of integration with CA in secondary prevention. Physicians were grouped according to the level of PC-CA integration. Results: The integration between CA and PC was good, but it was better in those centres with a higher integration (74.0% vs. 60.0%; p=.02) and in general, physicians considered that integration had improved (92.0% vs. 73.0%; p<.001). Almost all PC physicians received the hospital discharge report. The majority of the hospital discharge reports included recommendations about the CA and PC follow-up, control of risk factors, as well as the duration of secondary prevention treatment, with not significant differences according to the level of integration. In 55.8%, 63.6%, and 51.3% of hospital discharge reports, indications were given on when to perform the follow-up blood analysis, as well as information about returning to working life and sexual activity, respectively. The most common communication method was the paper-based report (75 vs. 84%; p=NS). The communication between healthcare levels was greater in those Primary Care centres with a higher level of integration, as well as periodicity of the communication and the satisfaction of physicians (80.0% vs. 63.0%; p=.005). Conclusions: The level of integration between PC and CA is, in general, satisfactory, but those centres with a higher level of integration benefit more from a greater communication and satisfaction
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Continuity of Patient Care/organization & administration , Physicians, Primary Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care , Secondary Prevention/methods , Attitude of Health Personnel , Cardiology/organization & administration , Communication , Cooperative Behavior , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Surveys and Questionnaires , SpainABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the perception of Primary Care (PC) physicians on the integration with cardiology (CA) through continuity of healthcare programs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional and multicentre study was conducted, in which a total of 200 PC physicians from all over Spain completed a qualitative survey that evaluated the level of integration with CA in secondary prevention. Physicians were grouped according to the level of PC-CA integration. RESULTS: The integration between CA and PC was good, but it was better in those centres with a higher integration (74.0% vs. 60.0%; p=.02) and in general, physicians considered that integration had improved (92.0% vs. 73.0%; p<.001). Almost all PC physicians received the hospital discharge report. The majority of the hospital discharge reports included recommendations about the CA and PC follow-up, control of risk factors, as well as the duration of secondary prevention treatment, with not significant differences according to the level of integration. In 55.8%, 63.6%, and 51.3% of hospital discharge reports, indications were given on when to perform the follow-up blood analysis, as well as information about returning to working life and sexual activity, respectively. The most common communication method was the paper-based report (75 vs. 84%; p=NS). The communication between healthcare levels was greater in those Primary Care centres with a higher level of integration, as well as periodicity of the communication and the satisfaction of physicians (80.0% vs. 63.0%; p=.005). CONCLUSIONS: The level of integration between PC and CA is, in general, satisfactory, but those centres with a higher level of integration benefit more from a greater communication and satisfaction.
