BackgroundThere is no clear evidence as to whether the co-location of primary care professionals in the same facility positively influences their way of working and the quality of healthcare as perceived by patients. The aim of this study was to identify the relationships between general practitioner (GP) co-location with other GPs and/or other professionals and the GP outcomes and patients’ experiences.MethodsWe wanted to test whether GP co-location is related to a broader range of services provided, the use of clinical governance tools and inter-professional collaboration, and whether the patients of co-located GPs perceive a better quality of care in terms of accessibility, comprehensiveness and continuity of care with their GPs. The source of data was the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe), which involved surveys of GPs and their patients in 34 countries, mostly in Europe. In order to study the relationships between GP co-location and both GPs’ outcomes and patients’ experience, multilevel linear regression analysis was carried out.ResultsThe GP questionnaire was filled in by 7183 GPs and the patient experience questionnaire by 61,931 patients. Being co-located with at least one other professional is the most common situation of the GPs involved in the study. Compared with single-handed GP practices, GP co-location are positively associated with the GP outcomes. Considering the patients’ perspective, comprehensiveness of care has the strongest negative relationship of GP co-location of all the dimensions of patient experiences analysed.ConclusionsThe paper highlights that GP mono- and multi-disciplinary co-location is related to positive outcomes at a GP level, such as a broader provision of technical procedures, increased collaboration among different providers and wider coordination with secondary care. However, GP co-location, particularly in a multidisciplinary setting, is related to less positive patient experiences, especially in countries with health systems characterised by a weak primary care structure.

Patient experience should be the starting point to achieve a high quality of care. Coherently, healthcare performance evaluation systems, driving the change in line

BackgroundSeveral countries have co-located General Practitioners (GPs) in Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with other health and social care professionals in order to improve integrated care. It is not clear whether the co-location of a multidisciplinary team actually facilitates a positive patient experience concerning GP care. The aim of this study was to verify whether the co-location of GPs in PCCs is associated positively with patient satisfaction with their GP when patients have experience of a multidisciplinary team. We also investigated whether patients who frequently use health services, due to their complex needs, benefitted the most from the co-location of a multidisciplinary team.MethodsThe study used data from a population survey carried out in Tuscany (central Italy) at the beginning of 2015 to evaluate the patients’ experience and satisfaction with their GPs. Multilevel linear regression models were implemented to verify the relationship between patient satisfaction and co-location. This key explanatory variable was measured by considering both the list of GPs working in PCCs and the answers of surveyed patients who had experienced the co-location of their GP in a multidisciplinary team. We also explored the effect modification on patient satisfaction due to the use of hospitalisation, access to emergency departments and visits with specialists, by performing the multilevel modelling on two strata of patient data: frequent and non-frequent health service users.ResultsA sample of 2025 GP patients were included in the study, 757 of which were patients of GPs working in a PCC. Patient satisfaction with their GP was generally positive. Results showed that having a GP working within a PCC and the experience of the co-located multidisciplinary team were associated with a higher satisfaction (p < 0.01). For non-frequent users of health services on the other hand, the co-location of multidisciplinary team in PCCs was not significantly associated with patient satisfaction, whereas for frequent users, the strength of relationships identified in the overall model increased (p < 0.01).ConclusionThe co-location of GPs with other professionals and their joint working as experienced in PCCs seems to represent a greater benefit for patients, especially for those with complex needs who use primary care, hospitals, emergency care and specialized care frequently.

Objective: To investigate prevalence and risk factors of pregnancy-related urinary/ fecal incontinence (UI/FI) in a large Italian population. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study analyzing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures obtained from the systematic longitudinal survey on the maternity pathway of Tuscany from March 2019 to April 2021. Four questionnaires were completed by 6023 women from the beginning of pregnancy until 6 months postpartum, each including two PRO measures-Wexner scale for FI and ICIQ-SF for UI-, and questions investigating sociodemographic/clinical factors. After assessing UI/FI prevalence at each time-point, we run panel regressions to explore the related risk factors.Results: Women reporting UI and FI were, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% in the third trimester, and 12.6% and 4.2% 6 months postpartum. UI occurrence and severity were higher in highly educated, aged >30, and overweight/obese women. Spontaneous tears or episiotomy were risk factors for postpartum UI, while receiving cesareansection and performing pelvic-floor-muscle-training during pregnancy were protective, mainly in specific groups. Finally, higher FI prevalence and severity emerged in overweight, aged >40, highly educated, non-Italian women and in those undergoing tears. Conclusion:We employed PRO measures to investigate the epidemiology of pregnancy-related UI/FI and detect the main risk groups. Pelvic-floor-muscle-training may be recommended in women with peculiar sociodemographic/clinical features.

Background Mobile health (mHealth) has great potential to both improve the quality and efficiency of care and increase health literacy and empowerment of patient users. There are several studies related to the introduction of mHealth tools for supporting pregnancy and the postnatal period, with promising but not yet rigorously evaluated impacts. This article presents the protocol for evaluating an mHealth intervention (hAPPyMamma) applied in the maternal and child care pathway of a high-income country (in a pilot area of Tuscany Region, Italy). Objective The protocol describes hAPPyMamma and the methods for evaluating its impact, including the points of view of women and practitioners. The research hypothesis is that the use of hAPPyMamma will facilitate a more appropriate use of available services, a better care experience for women, and an improvement in the maternal competencies of the women using the app compared to the control group. The protocol also includes analysis of the organizational impact of the introduction of hAPPyMamma in the maternal pathway. Methods A pre-post quasiexperimental design with a control group is used to undertake difference-in-differences analysis for assessing the impact of the mHealth intervention from the mothers’ points of view. The outcome measures are improvement of maternal health literacy and empowerment as well as experience in the maternal care pathway of the control and intervention groups of sampled mothers. The organizational impact is evaluated through a quantitative and qualitative survey addressing professionals and managers of the maternal care pathway involved in the intervention. Results Following study recruitment, 177 women were enrolled in the control group and 150 in the intervention group, with a participation rate of 97%-98%. The response rate was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (96% vs 67%), though the intervention group had less respondent loss at the postintervention survey (10% compared to 33% of the control group). Data collection from the women was completed in April 2018, while that from professionals and managers is underway. Conclusions The study helps consolidate evidence of the utility of mHealth interventions for maternal and child care in developed countries. This paper presents a protocol for analyzing the potential role of hAPPyMamma as an effective mHealth tool for improving the maternal care pathway at individual and organizational levels and consequently helps to understand whether and how to scale up this intervention, with local, national, and international scopes of application. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/19073