Table 3 Continuity of care experienced by patients in a regional pancreatic care network in collaboration between care providers (ranked on a 1–5 Likert scale
| Â | Within primary care | Â | Â | Within the hospital | Â | Â | Between general practitioner and specialist | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Mean (SD) | Missing/? (%) | Floor effect n (%) | Ceiling effect n (%) | Mean (SD) | Missing/? (%) | Floor effect n (%) | Ceiling effect n (%) | Mean (SD) | Missing/? (%) | Floor effect n (%) | Ceiling effect n (%) |
Subscale 3: Cross-boundary continuity | ||||||||||||
1. These care providers transfer information very well to each other | 3.45 (0.86) | 22 (50) | 1 (2.3) | 1 (2.3) | 3.76 (0.51) | 15 (34) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.3) | 3.64 (0.73) | 16 (36) | 0 (0) | 3 (6.8) |
2. These care providers work together very well | 3.60 (0.68) | 24 (55) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.3) | 3.71 (0.60) | 16 (36) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.3) | 3.44 (0.64) | 17 (38) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
3. The care of these care providers is very well-connected | 3.50 (0.61) | 24 (55) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3.76 (0.69) | 15 (34) | 0 (0) | 3 (6.8) | 3.41 (0.78) | 17 (38) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.3) |
4. These care providers always know very well from each other what they do | 3.32 (0.82) | 25 (57) | 1 (2.3) | 0 (0) | 3.43 (0.84) | 16 (36) | 0 (0) | 2 (4.5) | 3.15 (0.78) | 18 (41) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.3) |
Mean score | 3.49 (0.68) | 3.66 (0.58) | 3.43 (0.65) | |||||||||