Abstract
Background
Maintaining doctor–patient relationship continuity remains a challenge in public primary care in Finland and internationally owing to GP workforce pressures and organisational constraints.
Aim
To evaluate implementation of a named GP model and explain differences in implementation outcomes between two Finnish primary care units.
Design and setting
A quasi-experimental before–after study was conducted in two Finnish primary care units with contrasting organisational settings. Patients were assigned a named GP responsible for non-urgent care. Electronic health record data covering physician consultations over 48 months were analysed.
Method
Continuity was measured using the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) Index, the St Leonard’s Index of Continuity of Care (SLICC), and the Own Patient Ratio (OPR). Implementation outcomes were interpreted using the RE-AIM framework. A segmented interrupted time series model was applied to OPR and SLICC, and UPC analysed using a pre–post design.
Results
Named GP continuity was higher in Tuira than in Pudasjärvi across all measures. In Tuira, adoption (OPR 0.88) was high and stable with lower named GP-level variation, while reach (SLICC 0.31) and effectiveness (UPC 0.35) improved but remained modest. Although continuity improved in Pudasjärvi, adoption remained weaker (OPR 0.40), reach lower (SLICC 0.16), and maintenance less stable. Continuity of care with physicians other than the named GP increased more in Pudasjärvi.
Conclusion
The named GP model was functionally adopted in Tuira but remained largely nominal in Pudasjärvi. Health systems implementing named GP models should prioritise sustained GP presence and organisational alignment to achieve continuity.