How Organizational Accommodation Converts Continuity of Care into Equitable Patient Experience and Satisfaction

Background/Objectives: Continuity of care, patient experience, and satisfaction are central concerns of healthcare management, yet continuity arrangements may transfer coordination work to patients whose resources differ substantially. This conceptual study develops a model explaining when continuity supports patient-centered care and how managers can evaluate its equity implications. Methods: A purposive, theory-guided synthesis integrated Donabedian’s structure–process–outcome framework with Burden of Treatment Theory and expectation–disconfirmation reasoning. Foundational publications, recent empirical studies, and measurement research informed construct boundaries, directional relationships, and a prospective evaluation design. References were checked against DOI registration records. No primary participant data were collected or analyzed. Results: The proposed Continuity Conversion Model identifies navigation burden as an intervening mechanism connecting organizational continuity with patient experience and subsequent satisfaction. Organizational accommodation, defined as accessible support matched to patients’ practical needs, is proposed to strengthen continuity’s association with lower burden. Four hypotheses specify these relationships; two propositions address organizational remediation and equity monitoring. Operationalization tables distinguish audited processes, patient-reported constructs, contextual characteristics, and clinical balancing outcomes. Two flowcharts depict the theoretical pathway and a feedback process for repairing service failures. A longitudinal design separates measurement occasions and permits tests of conditional indirect associations, competing explanations, and subgroup differences. Conclusions: Continuity should be assessed by whether patients can use connected services without excessive navigation work. The model offers a testable management approach that treats equity as a distributional question and satisfaction as an evaluative outcome rather than a sufficient indicator of quality. Its explanatory value and proposed measures require empirical validation.