Dear Editors
I thank Susanne Stevens for her support.
I would like to submit a correction to my previous rapid response:
* some studies looking at the value of a designated or nominated GP failed to find “improvements in either continuity of care or rates of unplanned hospitalisation” (ref 1), but it is uncertain if sufficient patients were adequately informed who their named GP was at the time of the trial, nor did the study look at whether the named GP ended up providing most of the care rather than just an administrative lip-service; other studies provide too short a followup time (9 months – ref 2) for any reasonable person to expect benefit from continuity of care
the correct statement should be
“but it is uncertain if sufficient patients were adequately informed who their named GP was at the start of the trial,”
Thank you
Correction of statement