Next Article in Journal
Psychological Stress among Students in Health-Related Fields during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study at Selected Munich Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Running around the Country: An Analysis of the Running Phenomenon among Brazilian Runners
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 12
10.3390/ijerph18126609
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing Nurses’ Satisfaction with Continuity of Care and the Case Management Model as an Indicator of Quality of Care in Spain

by
Gloria Reig-Garcia
1,
Rosa Suñer-Soler
2,*,
Susana Mantas-Jiménez
1,
Anna Bonmatí-Tomas
2,
Maria Carmen Malagón-Aguilera
2,
Cristina Bosch-Farré
2,
Sandra Gelabert-Viella
1 and
Dolors Juvinyà-Canal
2
1
Department of Nursing, University of Girona, 17003 Girona, Spain
2
Department of Nursing, Health and Health Care Research Group, University of Girona, 17003 Girona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(12), 6609; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126609
Submission received: 3 May 2021 / Revised: 15 June 2021 / Accepted: 16 June 2021 / Published: 19 June 2021
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chronic diseases are treated and cared for in different healthcare settings. Continuity of care and the case management model facilitate the integration of processes and care levels. However, there is little evidence regarding the satisfaction of nurses with this model. The purpose of this study was to examine nurses’ satisfaction with continuity of care and the case management model. A cross-sectional study was conducted. An ad hoc questionnaire was administrated to 437 Spanish nurses from the three health care settings that responded. This included items on socio-demographics, employment relationship, and satisfaction with continuity of care and case management. Descriptive analysis and linear regression models were performed. In total, 96.1% of the nurses expressed a high level of satisfaction with continuity of care and 80.7% with the case management model. Nurses in a primary care setting reported the greatest satisfaction with the case management model (B = 0.146, 95% CI = 0.139–0.694, p = 0.003). The nurses’ higher perception of patient satisfaction was associated with greater satisfaction with continuity of care (B = 0.466, 95% CI = −0.367–0.533, p < 0.000). Nurses identified the case management model as an optimal facilitator of continuity of care. While satisfaction with continuity is high, strategies are needed to improve it in primary care centers and aged care homes.

1. Introduction

Addressing the global burden of chronic diseases is a major development challenge in the 21st century and is among the priority directives of the World Health Organization (WHO). Increased life expectancy, improvements in public health and healthcare, and the adoption of certain lifestyles indicate that the dominant epidemiological pattern is focused on chronic diseases [1].
These diseases lead to the reduced quality of life of those affected (patients and families), premature mortality, and major economic burdens on families, communities, and society. Chronic diseases are treated and cared for in different healthcare settings, and it has been observed that sometimes patients can feel that they “fall between the cracks” when receiving care in different healthcare settings [2,3]. As a result of these demographic and epidemiological changes, health systems have had to respond to the growing demand for increasingly diversified services and needs [4,5,6].
Hence, there is a need for an environment that adapts to the needs of chronic patients and their co-morbidities, as well as one that brings about a change in the culture among professionals and organizations [7,8]. Continuity of care and case management can provide a solution to this problem [9,10,11].
Continuity of care is the degree of coherence and amalgamation of the experiences that patients perceive over time, so that they are consistent with their health needs and personal circumstances [12]. It can be seen that continuity of care exists when the care provided, maintained over time, and perceived by the patient are in accordance [13], which includes the connection and synchronization of services and the fulfillment of multidisciplinary and person-centered objectives [14,15]. Continuity of care in nursing is based on the transfer of information and the coordination and consistency of care among nurses providing different levels of care, in order to personalize it according to the needs of the patient and the illness involved [16,17]. The continuity of care process is multidisciplinary, but the literature demonstrates that nurses are the key professionals who can improve this process [18,19].
The organizational care model of case management, which originated in Anglosphere countries, stemmed from the necessity to find a balance between the needs of patients and the health system [20]. For this, nurse case managers help the patient/family navigate the system in the most efficient way, minimizing fragmentation and duplication of care, and promoting care integration [21,22]. This model promotes a comprehensive approach to a person in a complex, dependent, and fragile situation, while developing advanced practices [23] and responding to the growing needs of the population. Similarly, the liaison function of nurses ensures the quality and continuity of care at different levels [20]. The case management model reduces hospitalizations, readmissions, medicalization, and functional impairment, and improves the patients’ quality of life [11,24,25].
The Case Management Society of America defines case management as a collaborative process, in which the options and services needed to meet an individual’s health needs are assessed, implemented, coordinated, monitored, and evaluated, bringing together the communication and available resources to promote quality and cost-effective outcomes [9].
Case manager nurses work in the community or hospital environment (nurse case manager, liaison, or advanced practice nurses according to the denomination in the different hospitals or primary care centers). Considering that life expectancy in the region of Catalonia (Spain) is one of the highest in the world, specifically 86.3 years for women and 80.7 for men [26], for this reason, continuity of care and case management programs have been adopted.
Patient safety, quality of care, and nurse-sensitive indicators are common areas of focus in the international research literature relating to patient outcomes [27,28]. In addition, health professionals’ satisfaction with continuity of care and case management models is considered an indicator for their evaluation [29]. However, there is lack of evidence on the nurses’ satisfaction with continuity of care and the case management model in chronic diseases. Therefore, it is important for organizations to identify the satisfaction of nurses, in order to provide quality care for chronic patients who need to be attended to in different settings.
Hence, this study aimed to examine the nurses’ satisfaction and their perceptions regarding continuity of care and the case management model.

2. Methods

2.1. Design

A cross-sectional study was performed. The study recruited a total of 639 participants (58.1% hospital; 33.6% primary care; 8.3% aged care homes) representing 100% of the nursing professionals working in the participating centers: two hospitals, thirteen primary care centers (PC), and six aged care homes. Only nurses who were working at the time of the study were included.

2.2. Instruments

An ad hoc, anonymous, and self-administered questionnaire was developed and adapted to the characteristics of each healthcare setting. It consisted of four sections. First, information regarding sociodemographic and employment variables including age, years since graduation, work experience in this specific healthcare setting, gender, employment relationship, function, training, and research. The second section referred to the nurses’ satisfaction with the continuity of care, and consisted of questions on three aspects: (a) satisfaction with continuity of care; (b) nurses’ perception of patient satisfaction with the continuity of care; and (c) the response time between hospital discharge and first contact with a PC’s nurse as a key element of satisfaction with the continuity of care. Responses to the first two items were measured on a Likert scale (1 = highest satisfaction to 5 = least satisfaction, recoded into a variable of three categories, wherein scores 1 and 2 were high satisfaction, score 3 was medium satisfaction, and scores 4 and 5 were low satisfaction) and the response time was measured in hours.
In the third section, we assessed the nurses’ perception of the need for continuity of care of chronic patients using questions regarding: (a) the need to report and receive information on all nursing activities performed during hospital admission; (b) the need to report and receive information only on activities performed during hospital admission, which require continuity once the patient is discharged from the hospital; and (c) the nurses’ perception that the increase in continuity of care improves the safety of the care provided by nurses. All three questions were measured using a Likert scale (1 = highest satisfaction to 5 = least satisfaction, recoded in a variable of three categories, wherein scores 1 and 2 were high satisfaction, score 3 was medium satisfaction, and scores 4 and 5 were low satisfaction).
The fourth section assessed nurses’ perceptions of case management as part of the current continuity of care model in chronic patients. Two questions were asked regarding: (a) the level of satisfaction with the case management nurse; and (b) satisfaction with the liaison nurse, both measured using a Likert scale (1 = highest satisfaction to 5 = least satisfaction, recoded in a variable of three categories, where scores 1 and 2 were high satisfaction, score 3 was medium satisfaction, and scores 4 and 5 were low satisfaction). Experts from the clinical and methodological fields participated in its preparation.
A validity and reliability test was conducted with 27 nurses. No modifications were required, and all participants showed an understanding of the issues raised and their assessment. We examined internal consistency reliability by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha of the subscale of satisfaction was 0.64, and for perception of the need for continuity of care it was 0.81.

2.3. Data Collection and Data Analysis

As an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire was used, 639 nurses were invited by the researchers to complete the questionnaire. Subsequently, they were provided with a printed copy that could be completed in approximately 10 min.
Continuous variables were described as the mean and measures of dispersion (standard deviation, median, and interquartile range). Categorical variables were described in terms of absolute frequency and percentage. The bivariate analyses were done by non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test. A multilinear regression analysis was used to study the factors strongly associated with nurse satisfaction.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the management of the 13 primary care centers, two hospitals, and six aged care homes. All participants were informed about the objective of the study. The completed questionnaires did not contain any personal information that could identify the participants. Data were analyzed by a researcher. The ethics’ principles defined in the Declaration of Helsinki were followed.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic and Employment Characteristics of Participants

The final sample included 437 nurses (68.4%). Of these, 92.4% (n = 404) were women. The average age of the nurses was 40.5 (SD 10.7) years. In total, 69.1% (n = 302) had a permanent employment relationship, and 30.9% (n = 135) had a temporary employment relationship. Regarding function, 93.4% (n = 408) were care nurses, 5.1% (n = 22) were management nurses, and 1.5% (n = 7) were liaison nurses or nurse case managers (Table 1).

3.2. Nurses’ Satisfaction with Continuity of Care

In total, 96.1% of the nurses expressed high satisfaction with the continuity of care, and 68% perceived that the patients were satisfied with the continuity of care. The youngest nurses, who had recently completed their university studies and were working in the same care setting, were the least satisfied with the continuity of care (Table 2).
Satisfaction with the continuity of care was high for 96.3% of female and 93.9% of male nurses. Nurse perception of patient satisfaction with continuity of care received a higher score among female nurses.
Nurses with temporary contracts were the most satisfied (98.7%) and had the most positive perception of patient satisfaction with the continuity of care (77.6%). Nurses providing care were the most satisfied and had the most positive perception of patient satisfaction with the continuity of care (85.7%).
Depending on the care setting, the nurses who were most satisfied with the continuity of care were those working in hospital care (97.2%), and those who perceived the highest patient satisfaction with the continuity of care were those working in primary care (71.4%) (p < 0.05) (Table 2), especially in rural centers (p = 0.02).
The average response time between hospital discharge and first contact from the primary care nurse was 28.9 (SD 10.2) hours. Nurses with temporary contracts were those who were considered to have a shorter response time (73.9% before 24 h) and those with permanent contracts were those who had a longer response time (35.9% after 25 h).
Nurses providing care were those with the lowest response time (65.3% less than 24 h) and the response time was highest (66.7% after 25 h) for case management nurses. Nurses providing care to adults reported an earlier contact time (65.1% of adult services nurses said they made contact within 24 h and 27.8% before 36 h), and these differences were statistically significant compared to those working in pediatric care (p < 0.05).

3.3. Nurses’ Perception of the Need for Continuity of Care

Regarding the nurses’ perception of the need for continuity of care, 95.3% of the nurses agreed on the need to report and receive information on all activities carried out during hospital admission and 97% agreed on the need for only the activities subject to continuity of care. Nurses with permanent contracts considered the need to report and receive information on all activities performed during hospitalization (95.6%) (p < 0.05), and above all, on activities subject to continuity of care (96.7%) (p < 0.01) (Table 2). Nurses with research training considered it necessary to report only the activities required by continuity of care (90.9%) (p < 0.01).
Of the nurses, 92.4% considered that increasing continuity of care promotes the safety of the nursing care provided, with the highest agreement from most experienced professionals (p < 0.05).

3.4. Nurse Perception of Case Management as Part of the Current Continuity of Care Model

Satisfaction with case management as part of the continuity of care model received a score of 1.76 (SD 0.80). Of the nurses, 83.1% were satisfied with the role of the hospital liaison nurse and 78.3% with the role of the primary care case management nurse, relating the satisfaction between the two roles as positive (p < 0.00). Younger nurses showed greater satisfaction with liaison nurses and nurse case managers (Table 3). The women rated the case management model more positively (83.4% for women vs. 79% for men; p > 0.05). Regarding the care setting, the primary care nurses, especially those from rural centers (p < 0.01), were the ones most satisfied with both roles, of the liaison nurse (84%; p < 0.05) and the case manager nurse (86.9%; p < 0.01) (Table 3). The nurses most satisfied with the role of the liaison nurse were those with a temporary contract (85.8%; p < 0.05), a trend that was maintained for the role of the nurse case manager (80.6%; p < 0.05) (Table 3).
In the linear regression model, a higher perceived patient satisfaction with the continuity of care was strongly associated with higher nurse satisfaction (B = 0.466; p < 0.000) (Table 4).
Working in a primary care setting was associated with greater satisfaction with the case management model (B = 0.146; p = 0.003) (Table 5).
The relationship between satisfaction and the perception of the continuity of care and satisfaction with the case management model, with employment variables and the nurses’ perception of patient satisfaction with the continuity of care is shown in Figure 1.

4. Discussion

Health professionals’ satisfaction with continuity of care is considered an indicator for its evaluation [29]. The study showed a high degree of satisfaction with the continuity of care, with no differences based on age and years of professional experience. Previously, the number of years worked had been considered a favorable factor with regard to nursing satisfaction with the continuity of care [30], which depending on the work setting obtained lower scores in aged care homes and PC. Previous studies concluded that there is a widespread perception of a lack of feedback from PC [31], and the existence of continuity of care being due to individual initiative, as it is not recognized and institutionally valued [32].
Patients relate accessibility to the health system and the perception of continuity of care with their level of satisfaction [33,34,35], which increases when they participate in standardized hospital discharge programs [36,37]. Nurse perception of patients’ satisfaction with continuity of care was higher in PC. This could be explained by different reasons. One the one hand, primary care is where chronic patients are attended to and is the most accessible level of care for patients [38]. While, on the other hand, PC is considered the cornerstone of integrating services into a health care system [39].
The response time between hospital discharge and the first contact from the PC nurse has been described as one of the key factors in the continuity of care process. The results of the study showed an average response time less than the 48 h recommended by the Health Department of the studied territory, adding value to the continuity of care process, and with nurses caring for adult patients making contact significantly earlier. Similarly, assuming that pediatric patients have a specific person assigned to them who will be responsible for the liaison function between the levels of care would represent a gap in the safety and quality of the process.
The importance of effective communication between nurses has been pointed out by Jones and Johnstone [40], and it is necessary to increase the motivation and awareness of nurses to communicate at other levels of care [41]. Some nurses do not perceive continuity of care as a direct competence in their profession [42]. Half of the patients readmitted to hospital 30 days after discharge had not been visited by the PC nurse [43]. Regarding nurses’ perception of the need for continuity of care, our results showed the sensitivity of hospital nurses for reporting on the entire hospitalization process and especially aspects with the greatest need for continuity of care. In accordance with this objective, the relationships between a greater perception of the need for continuity of care were significant with the following variables: age, years since graduation, type of contract, and research training. As nurses without research training gave more importance to the need to report activities that require continuity of care, and did not value the need to communicate all aspects related to the process, this leads us to believe that the lack of knowledge of a recurrent theme in research could cause certain aspects of a patient that are important for their comprehensive care to be neglected.
In recent years, patient safety has guided the determination of the quality of all health services. Marek et al. [44] concluded that patients who receive care through a coordination program established between the different levels of care have better results regarding dyspnea, pain, and capacity for undertaking everyday activities. Coinciding with the literature [45,46], the study results point to continuity of care as a fundamental element for ensuring the safety of the nursing care provided.
The case management model is adapted to the context of care, promoting a higher quality of care and facilitating continuity of care in all stages of the process [47]. In this regard, the results of this study identified the case management model as a strategy to facilitate continuity of care. Previous studies have determined that the case management model provides numerous benefits to the patient and the system [23,48]. The application of the model decreases patient readmissions [23,49], improves their therapeutic adherence [50], improves their perception of their quality of life [51], and decreases morbidity in formal caregivers [52]. Moreover, the case management model integrates various providers [53,54], and positively impacts the satisfaction of nurses, who see their role as being more developed [55].
Greater satisfaction with the model as a guarantee of continuity of care has been significantly associated with age and level of care, with the youngest nurses working in primary care being the most satisfied with the case management model; a better understanding of the model provided in university training could explain this result.
Regarding the level of care, the similarity of the role of primary care professionals, who attend to chronic patients comprehensively and longitudinally, and the case management model, could influence the results of greater satisfaction with case management as part of the continuity of care model at this care level. Institutions must make an effort to raise awareness of these new roles among the most experienced groups and professionals working at levels of care other than in primary care.

4.1. Implication for Practice

The continuity of care and the application of the case management model facilitate and promote person-centered care and the integration of processes and care levels. It also provides benefits for the patient and the system, as well as developing nursing professionals’ competencies. Knowledge of nurses’ views on the model is important for their development. Primary care is essential for the control and the continuity of chronic patient treatment; however, the results show that primary care nurses are the least satisfied. It would be beneficial to study the variables associated with lower satisfaction and implement strategies to improve it.
A greater homogeneity of the continuity of care model and target populations and the clear description of the role and responsibilities of nurses would clarify model expectations, leading to a refinement of indicators for their evaluation. Therefore, it is necessary to agree on the time devoted to the continuity of care and the ratios of case management nurses.

4.2. Study Limitations

First, the main limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which only allows for the study of the relationships between variables, without the possibility of establishing causality, even if the size of the study population is appropriate. Moreover, the results reflect the opinions and perceptions at the time of the study, which has limitations when making future projections.

4.3. Future Studies

In recent years, multiple and different models of care continuity and case management have emerged. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between nurses’ satisfaction with different models of continuity of care and case management, and how this affects patient safety and the quality of care, especially for chronic patients.

5. Conclusions

Nurses in different care settings show a high degree of satisfaction with the continuity of care model, as well as a high level of perceived need for it. While satisfaction with the continuity of care is high, strategies are needed to improve it among primary care nurses and nurses working in aged care homes. These might include the creation of spaces where nurses from different backgrounds can work together, as networking spaces; increasing the knowledge of nurses about each setting by allowing the rotation of nurses; and shifting certain elements from case management to the continuity of care model.
The case management model is identified as the optimal facilitator in the nursing process of continuity of care, with this perception being greater in primary care. Nurses’ perception of patient satisfaction is strongly related to nurses’ satisfaction with the continuity of care, and the primary care setting is strongly related to satisfaction with the case manager nurse.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.R.-G., R.S.-S. and D.J.-C.; Data curation, R.S.-S., S.M.-J. and A.B.-T.; Formal analysis, G.R.-G., R.S.-S. and D.J.-C.; Investigation, G.R.-G., R.S.-S., M.C.M.-A., C.B.-F. and S.G.-V.; Methodology, G.R.-G., R.S.-S., A.B.-T. and D.J.-C.; Visualization, G.R.-G., A.B.-T. and D.J.-C.; Writing—original draft, G.R.-G., R.S.-S., S.M.-J. and A.B.-T.; Writing—review & editing, G.R.-G., R.S.-S., S.M.-J., A.B.-T., M.C.M.-A., C.B.-F., S.G.-V. and D.J.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the management of the 13 primary care centers, two hospitals, and six aged care homes. Being an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire, the approval of the ethics committee was waived.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Non-Communicable Diseases Descriptive Note GENEVA. 2017. Available online: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/es/ (accessed on 25 April 2021).
  2. Ponikowski, P.; Voors, A.A.; Anker, S.D.; Bueno, H.; Cleland, J.G.F.; Coats, A.J.S. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 2129–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Säfström, E.; Jaarsma, T.; Strömberg, A. Continuity and utilization of health and community care in elderly patients with heart failure before and after hospitalization. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Robinson, H.M.; Hort, K. Non-communicable diseases and health systems reform in low-and-middle-income countries. Pac. Health Dialog. 2012, 18, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. World Health Organization. WHO Global Strategy on People-Centered and Integrated Health Services; Service Delivery and Safety: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; Available online: http://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/global-strategy/en/ (accessed on 25 April 2021).
  6. Rufus, J.; Jani, H.; Peters, K.; Agho, K.; Tannous, W.K. The effectiveness of patient-centred medical home-based model of care versus standard primary care in chronic disease management: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non Randomised Controlled Trials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kyounghae, K.; Janet, S.; Eunsuk, C.; Carrie, L.; Jin Hui, J.; Frank, G. Effects of community-based health worker interventions to improve chronic disease management and care among vulnerable populations: A systematic review. Am. J. Public Health 2016, 106, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. MCNewman, T.; San-Juan-Rodriguez, A.; Parekh, N.; Swart, E.; Klein-Fredysihin, M.; Sharnk, W.; Hernandez, I. Impact of community pharmacist-led in chronic disease management on clinical, utilization, and economic outcomes: An umbrella review. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2020, 16, 1155–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Case Management Society of America. Standards of Practice for Case Management. 2016. Available online: https://www.abqaurp.org/DOCS/2016%20CM%20standards%20of%20practice.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  10. Douglas, C.; Schmalkuche, D.; Nizette, D.; Yates, P.; Bonner, A. Nurse-led service in Queensland: A scoping study. Collegian 2018, 25, 367–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Facchinetti, G.; D’Angelo, D.; Piredda, M.; Petitti, T.; Matarese, M.; Oliveti, A.; De Marinis, M.G. Continuity of care interventions for preventing hospital readmission of older people with chronic diseases: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 101, 103396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Haggerty, J.; Reid, R.; Freeman, G.K.; Starfield, B.H.; Adair, C.E.; Mc Kendry, R. Continuity of care: A multidisciplinary review. BMJ 2003, 327, 1219–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Gulliford, M.; Naithani, S.; Morgan, M. What is ‘continuity of care’? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2006, 11, 248–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bahr, S.J.; Weiss, M.E. Clarifying model for continuity of care: A concept analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2018, 25, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Meiqari, L.; Al-Oudat, T.; Essink, D.; Scheele, F.; Wright, P. How have researchers defined and used the concept of continuity of care for chronic conditions in the context of resource-constrained settings? A scoping review of existing literature and a proposed conceptual framework. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2019, 17, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Anderson, M.A.; Helms, L.B. Talking about patients: Communication and continuity of care. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2000, 14, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bakon, S.; Wirihana, L. Nursing handovers: An integrative review of the different models and processes available. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2017, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Boston-Fleischhauer, C.; Rose, R.; Hartwing, L. Cross-continuum Care Continuity. Achieving Seamless Care and Managing Comorbidities. JONA 2017, 47, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Yilmaz, M.; Emirouglyu, O. The need assessment of MI Patients in discharge Planning and home-health care: A sample from Turkey. Int. J. Adv. Nurs. Pract. 2005, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hisashige, A. The effectiveness and efficiency of disease management programs for patients with chronic diseases. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2013, 5, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Laramee, A.S.; Levinsky, S.K.; Sargent, J.; Ross, R.; Callas, P. Case management in a heterogeneous congestive heart failure population: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 2003, 163, 809–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kelly, K.J.; Doucet, S.; Luke, A. Exploring the roles, functions, and background of patient navigators and case managers: A scoping review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2019, 98, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Doménech-Briz, V.; Gómez Romero, R.; de Miguel-Montoya, I.; Juárez-Vela, R.; Martínez-Riera, J.R.; Mármol-López, M.I.; Verdaguer-Gómez, M.V.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, Á.; Gea-Caballero, V. Results of Nurse Case Management in Primary Heath Care: Bibliographic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chouinard, M.C.; Hudon, C.; Dubois, M.F.; Roberge, P.; Loignon, C.; Tchouaket, E.; Fortin, M.; Couture, E.M.; Sasseville, M. Case management and self-management support for frequent users with chronic disease in primary care: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2013, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hernández-Zambrano, S.; Mesa-Melgarejo, L.; Carrillo-Algarra, A.; Castiblanco-Montañez, R.; Chaparro-Dias, L.; Carreño-Moreno, S. Effectiveness of case management model for the comprehensive provision of health services to multi-pathological people. J. Adv. Nurs. 2018, 75, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Indicadores Demográficos. 2020. Available online: https://www.ine.es (accessed on 16 March 2021).
  27. Recio-Saucedo, A.; Dall’Ora, C.; Maruotti, A.; Ball, J.; Briggs, P.; Griffiths, P. What impact does nursing care left undone have on patient outcomes? Review of the literature. J. Clin. Nurs. 2018, 27, 2248–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sim, J.; Crookes, P.; Walsh, K.; Halcomb, E. Measuring the outcomes of nursing practice: A Delphi study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2018, 27, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Jeong-Im, R.; Kim, K. The influence of nursing care integration services on nurses’ work satisfaction and quality of nursing care. J. Nurs. Manag. 2018, 26, 1024–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tilus, S.L. The influence of nursing education on collaborative discharge planning. J. Nurses Staff. Dev. 2002, 18, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Allepuz, A.; Gallardo, B.; Perona, M. Coordination between levels of care: What are the priorities for the healthcare professionals? Aten Primaria 2012, 44, 568–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Aller, M.B.; Vargas, I.; Waibel, S.; Coderch-Lassaletta, J.; Sánchez-Pérez, I.; Llopart, J.R.; Colomés, L.; Ferran, M.; Garcia-Subirats, I.; Vázquez Navarrete, M.L. Factors associated to experienced continuity of care between primary and outpatient secondary care in the Catalan public healthcare system. Gac. Sanit. 2013, 27, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Deravin Carr, D. High-Quality Care Transitions Continuity of Care and Safer Promote Discharges. J. N. Y. State Nurses Assoc. 2019, 46, 4–11. [Google Scholar]
  34. Health Quality Ontario. Continuity of Care to Optimize Chronic Disease Management in the Community Setting: An Evidence-Based Analysis. Ont. Health Technol. Assess Ser. 2013, 13, 1–41. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tonkikh, O.; Zisberg, A.; Shadmi, E. Association between continuity of nursing care and older adults’ hospitalization outcomes: A retrospective observational study. J. Nurs. Manag. 2020, 28, 1062–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Richardson, J.; Letts, L.; Chan, D.; Stratford, P.; Hand, C.; Price, D.; Hilts, L.; Coman, L.; Edwards, M.; Baptiste, S. Rehabilitation in primary care setting for persons with chronic illness: A randomized controlled trial. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 2010, 11, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Suñer, R.; Juvinyà, D.; Bertran, C.; Graboleda, C.; Brugada, N.; Garcia, M.M. Continuity of care and monitoring pain after discharge patient perspective. J. Adv. Nurs. 2010, 66, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fan, V.S.; Burman, M.; Mc Donell, M.B.; Fihn, S.D. Continuity of care and other determinants of patient satisfaction with primary care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2005, 20, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Valentijn, P.P.; Schepman, S.M.; Opheij, W.; Bruijnzeels, M.A. Understanding integrated care: A comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. Int. J. Integr. Care 2013, 13, e010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Jones, A.; Johnstone, M. Managing gaps in the continuity of nursing care to enhance patient safety. Collegian 2019, 26, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Anthony, M.K.; Hudson-Barr, D.C. A patient-centered model of care for hospital discharge. Clin. Nurs. Res. 2004, 13, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Watts, R.; Gardner, H. Nurses’ perceptions of discharge planning. Nurs. Health Sci. 2005, 7, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jencks, S.F.; Williams, M.V.; Coleman, E.A. Rehospitalization among patients in the Medicare fee- for-service program. NEJM 2009, 360, 1418–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Marek, K.D.; Propejoy, L.; Petroski, G.; Rantz, M. Nurse care coordination in community based long-term care. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2006, 38, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Apker, J.; Propp, K.M.; Ford, W.S.Z.; Hofmeister, N. Collaboration, credibility, compassion and coordination: Professional nurse communication skill sets in Health care interactions. J. Prof. Nurs. 2006, 22, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zangaro, G.A.; Soeken, K.L. A meta-analysis of studies of nurse’s job satisfaction. Res. Nurs. Health 2007, 30, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fabbri, E.; De Maria, M.; Bertolaccini, L. Case management: An up-to-date review of literature and a proposal of a county utilization. Ann. Transl. Med. 2017, 5, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Cowan, M.J.; Shapiro, M.; Hays, R.D.; Aiffi, A.; Vazirani, S.; Ward, C.R. The effect of a multidisciplinary hospitalist physician and advanced practice nurse collaboration on hospital costs. J. Nurs. Adm. 2006, 36, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chodosh, J.; Morton, S.C.; Mojica, W.; Maglione, M.; Suttorp, M.J.; Hilton, L.; Rhodes, S.; Shekelle, P. Meta-analysis: Chronic disease self-management programs for older adults. Ann. Inter. Med. 2005, 143, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Dalal, H.M.; Wingham, J.; Palmer, J.; Taylor, R.; Petre, C.; Lewin, R.; REACH-HF investigators. Why do so few patients with heart failure participate in cardiac rehabilitation? A cross-sectional survey from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. BMJ Open 2012, 2, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Coffey, A.; Mulcahy, H.; Savage, E.; Fitzgerald, S.; Bradley, C.; Benefield, L.; Leahy-Warren, P. Transitional care interventions: Relevance for nursing in the community. Public Health Nurs. 2017, 34, 454–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Garlo, K.; O’Leary, J.; Van Ness, P.; Fried, T. Burden in Caregivers of Older Adults with Advanced Illness. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2010, 58, 2315–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Kitchens, J.; Fulton, J.; Maze, L. Patient and family description of receiving care in acuity adaptable care model. J. Nurs. Manag. 2018, 26, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Şahin, C.; Iseringhausen, O.; Hower, K.; Liebe, C.; Rethmeier-Hanke, A.; Wedmann, B. Regional geriatric care concept in the District of Lippe: Structural effects and network formation in the case management-based model project. Z. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2018, 51, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Khan, B.P.; Quinn Griffin, M.T.; Fitzpatrick, J.J. Staff Nurses’ Perceptions of Their Nurse Managers’ Transformational Leadership Behaviors and Their Own Structural Empowerment. J. Nurs. Adm. 2018, 48, 609–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 18 06609 g001 550
Figure 1. Nurse satisfaction regarding the continuity of care and case management model.
Figure 1. Nurse satisfaction regarding the continuity of care and case management model.
Ijerph 18 06609 g001
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic and employment characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Sociodemographic and employment characteristics of the sample.
Study Population
N: 437
Age (mean; standard deviation (SD))40.5 (10.7)
Years after completing university studies (University studies) (mean; SD)18.1 (10.7)
Work experience at the same care level (years) (mean; SD)14.9 (10.1)
Gender (n; %)
Woman 404 (92.4)
Employment relationship (Contract) (n; %)
Permanent302 (69.1)
Temporary135 (30.9)
Function (n; %)
Care408 (93.4)
Management22 (5.1)
Liaison nurse or case manager nurse7 (1.5)
Training (n; %)
Continuous354 (81.2)
Postgraduate316 (72.4)
Research (n; %)
Publications in the last 5 years76 (17.6)
Attended congresses/activities on continuity of care199 (45.7)
Table
Table 2. Nurse satisfaction with the current continuity of care model and related variables.
Table 2. Nurse satisfaction with the current continuity of care model and related variables.
Satisfaction to Report and Receive Information Regarding Hospital CareSatisfaction to Report and Receive Information on the Continuity of CareSatisfaction with the Continuity of Care and the Safety of the Care Provided
High
n = 415		Medium
n = 14		Low
n = 8		pHigh
n = 418		Medium
n = 12		Low
n = 7		pHigh
n = 404		Medium
n = 24		Low
n = 9		p
Age (mean; SD)40.6 (10.8)42.8 (10.3)35.6 (5.9)0.3840.5 (10.7)43.4 (11.3)36 (5.9)0.3840.2 (10.6)46.1 (11.3)38.1 (9.5)0.03
University studies (mean; SD)18.0 (10.8)20.1 (9.3)14.7 (9.5)0.4318.0 (10.2)20.8 (11.0)15.1 (9.9)0.5517.7 (10.6)24.2 (11.1)17.4 (12.9)0.03
Work experience (years) (mean; SD)14.9 (10.1)14.7 (11.9)12.3 (6.4)0.8914.9 (10.1)18.2 (12.1)12.7 (6.7)0.6314.9 (10)17.1 (11.5)11.1 (6.4)0.50
Contract (n; %) 0.02 0,01 0.04
Permanent contract291 (95.6)11 (3.9)1 (0.5) 295 (96.7)7 (2.8)1 (0.5) 281 (92.1)20 (7.1)2 (0.8)
Temporary contract124 (92.5)3 (2.2)7 (5.3) 123 (91.8)5 (3.7)6 (4.8) 123 (91.7)4 (3.0)7 (5.3)
Overall Satisfaction with the Continuity of CarePatients’ Satisfaction with the Continuity of Care
High
n = 420		Medium
n = 17		Low
n = 0		pHigh
n = 297		Medium
n = 127		Low
n = 13		p
Age (mean; SD)40.6 (10.8)37.5 (7.7)-0.2939.5 (10.8)42.1 (10.5)38.2 (8.9)0.11
University studies (mean; SD)18.2 (10.8)14.9 (9.2)-0.3317.5 (10.7)19.3 (10.9)18.0 (10)0.34
Work experience (years) (mean; SD)14.9 (10.2)13.4 (5.4)-0.9814.1 (9.8)17.0 (10.9)14.3 (6.8)0.05
Care setting (n; %) 0.53 0.05
Primary care144 (94.1)9 (5.9)- 109 (71.4)42 (27.2)2 (1.4)
Hospital care243 (97.2)7 (2.8)- 169 (67.6)74 (29.6)7 (2.8)
Aged care homes32 (94.1)2 (5.9)- 22 (64.7)8 (23.5)4 (11.8)
Table
Table 3. Satisfaction with case manager nurses by socio-demographic and employment variables.
Table 3. Satisfaction with case manager nurses by socio-demographic and employment variables.
Nurse Satisfaction with the Case Manager NurseNurse Satisfaction with the Liaison Nurse
High
n = 363		Medium
n = 66		Low
n = 8		pHigh
n = 342		Medium
n = 90		Low
n = 5		p
Age (mean; SD)40.5 (10.7)40.2 (10.3)45.3 (11.9)0.4440.5 (10.8)40.6 (10.4)41.4 (10.8)0.97
University studies (mean; SD)17.8 (10.7)18.8 (13.4)24.5 (13.3)0.1917.7 (10.8)19.2 (10.3)19.8 (12.8)0.45
Years of experience (mean; SD)14.9 (10.1)15.5 (10.4)14 (5.5)0.9114.8 (10.1)15.5 (10.2)12 (8.2)0.78
Contract (n; %) 0.01 0.05
Permanent contract234 (77.2)67 (22.1)2 (0.6) 248 (81.8)48 (15.8)7 (2.3)
Temporary contract108 (80.6)23(17.2)3 (2.2) 115 (85.8)18 (13.4)1 (0.7)
Care Setting (n; %) 0.01 0.05
Primary care133 (86.9)13 (8.6)7 (4.6) 129 (84.0)22 (14.7)2 (1.3)
Hospital care207 (82.8)42 (16.8)1 (0.4) 192 (76.8)55 (22.0)3 (1.2)
Age care homes26 (76.5)8 (23.5)- 21 (61.8)13 (38.2)-
Table
Table 4. Linear regression model to assess satisfaction with continuity of care nursing (n = 437).
Table 4. Linear regression model to assess satisfaction with continuity of care nursing (n = 437).
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with the Continuity of Care Nursing
BSE95% CIβp
Age−0.0060.005−0.015–0.004−0.0840.249
Care setting−0.0630.053−0.168–0.043−0.0540.243
Years of experience0.0020.005−0.007–0.0120.0330.645
Patient satisfaction with the continuity of care0.4500.042−0.367–0.5330.4660.000
Satisfaction with the hospital liaison nurse0.0100.015−0.019–0.0390.0310.483
Nurse satisfaction with the primary care nurse manager0.0120.018−0.023–0.0470.0290.515
R20.224
Corrected R20.213
B: coefficient B; SE: standard error; 95% CI: confidence interval of 95%; β: standardized beta coefficient. R2: R-square, the coefficient of determination; corrected R2: adjusted R-square (adjusted coefficient of determination).
Table
Table 5. Linear regression model to assess satisfaction with the case manager nurse (n = 437).
Table 5. Linear regression model to assess satisfaction with the case manager nurse (n = 437).
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with the Case Manager Nurse
BSE95% CIβp
Age0.0150.008−0.0330.0940.074
Care setting0.4170.1410.139–0.6940.1460.003
Contract 0.1490.078−0.3050.0980.056
Need to receive information regarding hospital care0.2980.125−0.5970.1150.017
R20.041
Corrected R20.032
B: coefficient B; SE: standard error; 95% CI: confidence interval of 95%; β: standardized beta coefficient. R2: R-square, the coefficient of determination; corrected R2: adjusted R-square (adjusted coefficient of determination).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Reig-Garcia, G.; Suñer-Soler, R.; Mantas-Jiménez, S.; Bonmatí-Tomas, A.; Malagón-Aguilera, M.C.; Bosch-Farré, C.; Gelabert-Viella, S.; Juvinyà-Canal, D. Assessing Nurses’ Satisfaction with Continuity of Care and the Case Management Model as an Indicator of Quality of Care in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6609. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126609

AMA Style

Reig-Garcia G, Suñer-Soler R, Mantas-Jiménez S, Bonmatí-Tomas A, Malagón-Aguilera MC, Bosch-Farré C, Gelabert-Viella S, Juvinyà-Canal D. Assessing Nurses’ Satisfaction with Continuity of Care and the Case Management Model as an Indicator of Quality of Care in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(12):6609. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126609

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reig-Garcia, Gloria, Rosa Suñer-Soler, Susana Mantas-Jiménez, Anna Bonmatí-Tomas, Maria Carmen Malagón-Aguilera, Cristina Bosch-Farré, Sandra Gelabert-Viella, and Dolors Juvinyà-Canal. 2021. "Assessing Nurses’ Satisfaction with Continuity of Care and the Case Management Model as an Indicator of Quality of Care in Spain" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12: 6609. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126609

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop