Associations between general practice characteristics with use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer and endoscopies: a cross-sectional ecological study

BACKGROUND

Large variation in measures of diagnostic activity has been described previously between English general practices, but related predictors remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between general practice population and characteristics, with the use of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and use of endoscopy.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational study of English general practices. We examined practice-level use (/1000 patients/year) of urgent referrals for suspected cancer, gastroscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We used mixed-effects Poisson regression to examine associations with the sociodemographic profile of practice populations and other practice attributes, including the average age, sex and country of qualification of practice doctors.

RESULTS

The sociodemographic characteristics of registered patients explained much of the between-practice variance in use of urgent referrals (32%) and endoscopic investigations (18-25%), all being higher in practices with older and more socioeconomically deprived patients. Practice-level attributes explained a substantial amount of between-practice variance in urgent referral (19%) but little of the variance in endoscopy (3%-4%). Adjusted urgent referral rates were higher in training practices and those with younger GPs. Practices with mean doctor ages of 41 and 57 years (at the 10th/90th centiles of the national distribution) would have urgent referral rates of 24.1 and 19.1/1000 registered patients, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Most between-practice variation in use of urgent referrals and endoscopies seems to reflect health need. Some practice characteristics, such as the mean age of GPs, are associated with appreciable variation in use of urgent referrals, though these associations do not seem strong enough to justify targeted interventions.

Should General Practitioners Refer More Patients to Hospital?

Twenty-two patients with skin problems were identified on the basis that their general practitioner was satisfied with their management and had no intention of referring them to hospital. These patients were reviewed by one of two dermatologists who made treatment recommendations in 14 cases, and these suggestions were taken up by 11 patients. Six patients reported definite subjective improvement in their skin condition six weeks later. The general practitioners found the consultation valuable in 17 cases.

Although these patients might have improved without the dermatologists' intervention, a group of patients may exist who would benefit from specialist advice, even though that advice has not been sought. Restriction on hospital referrals could therefore be detrimental to patient care. Controlled trials could be conducted to determine the benefit of specialist advice on patients not currently seen in hospital.

Informal carers' health-related quality of life and patient experience in primary care: evidence from 195,364 carers in England responding to a national survey

Background

We aim to describe the health-related quality of life of informal carers and their experiences of primary care.

Methods

Responses from the 2011-12 English General Practice Patient Survey, including 195,364 informal carers, were analysed using mixed effect logistic regressions controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation to describe carer health-related quality of life (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression, measured using EQ-5D) and primary care experience (access, continuity and communication).

Results

Informal carers reported poorer health-related quality of life than non-carers of similar age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation. Increasing caring commitment was associated with worse EQ-5D scores, with carers of 50+ hours a week scoring 0.05 points lower than non-carers (95 % CI 0.05 to 0.04), equivalent to 18 fewer days of full health annually. Considering each domain of EQ-5D separately, carers of 50+ hours/week were more likely to report pain OR = 1.53 (1.50-1.57), p < 0.0001, and anxiety/depression OR = 1.69 (1.66-1.73), p < 0.0001, than non-carers. Younger carers scored lower on EQ-5D than non-carer peers but the converse was true among over-85s. In the most deprived areas carers reported the equivalent of 37 fewer days of full health annually than carers in the most affluent areas. On average, carers reported poorer patient experiences in all areas of primary care than non-carers (odds ratios 0.84-0.97), with this difference being most marked in the domain of access.

Conclusions

Informal carers experience a double disadvantage of poorer health-related quality of life and poorer patient experience in primary care. We find no evidence for health benefits of caregiving. We recommend physicians identify and treat carer health problems, including pain and anxiety/depression, particularly among young, deprived and high time-commitment carers. Improving patient experience for carers, including access to primary care, should be a priority.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0277-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is polypharmacy always hazardous? A retrospective cohort analysis using linked electronic health records from primary and secondary care

AIMS

Prescribing multiple medications is associated with various adverse outcomes, and polypharmacy is commonly considered suggestive of poor prescribing. Polypharmacy might thus be associated with unplanned hospitalization. We sought to test this assumption.

METHODS

Scottish primary care data for 180 815 adults with long-term clinical conditions and numbers of regular medications were linked to national hospital admissions data for the following year. Using logistic regression (age, gender and deprivation adjusted), we modelled the association of prescribing with unplanned admission for patients with different numbers of long-term conditions.

RESULTS

Admissions were more common in patients on multiple medications, but admission risk varied with the number of conditions. For patients with one condition, the odds ratio for unplanned admission for four to six medications was 1.25 (95% confidence interval 1.11-1.42) vs. one to three medications, and 3.42 (95% confidence interval 2.72-4.28) for ≥10 medications vs. one to three medications. However, this effect was greatly reduced for patients with multiple conditions; amongst patients with six or more conditions, those on four to six medications were no more likely to have unplanned admissions than those taking one to three medications (odds ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.88-1.14), and those taking ≥10 medications had a modestly increased risk of admission (odds ratio 1.50; 95% confidence interval 1.31-1.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned hospitalization is strongly associated with the number of regular medications. However, the effect is reduced in patients with multiple conditions, in whom only the most extreme levels of polypharmacy are associated with increased admissions. Assumptions that polypharmacy is always hazardous and represents poor care should be tempered by clinical assessment of the conditions for which those drugs are being prescribed.

How do people with diabetes describe their experiences in primary care? Evidence from 85,760 patients with self-reported diabetes from the English General Practice Patient Survey

OBJECTIVE

Developing primary care is an important current health policy goal in the U.S. and England. Information on patients' experience can help to improve the care of people with diabetes. We describe the experiences of people with diabetes in primary care and examine how these experiences vary with increasing comorbidity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using data from 906,578 responders to the 2012 General Practice Patient Survey (England), including 85,760 with self-reported diabetes, we used logistic regressions controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to analyze patient experience using seven items covering three domains of primary care: access, continuity, and communication.

RESULTS

People with diabetes were significantly more likely to report better experience on six out of seven primary care items than people without diabetes after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (adjusted differences 0.88-3.20%; odds ratios [ORs] 1.07-1.18; P < 0.001). Those with diabetes and additional comorbid long-term conditions were more likely to report worse experiences, particularly for access to primary care appointments (patients with diabetes alone compared with patients without diabetes: OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.17-1.28] and patients with diabetes plus three or more conditions compared with patients without diabetes: OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.83-0.91]).

CONCLUSIONS

People with diabetes in England report primary care experiences that are at least as good as those without diabetes for most domains of care. However, improvements in primary care are needed for diabetes patients with comorbid long-term conditions, including better access to appointments and improved communication.

Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice.

DESIGN

Analysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices.

SETTING

Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models.

RESULTS

After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

ACE inhibitor and angiotensin receptor-II antagonist prescribing and hospital admissions with acute kidney injury: a longitudinal ecological study

Background

ACE Inhibitors (ACE-I) and Angiotensin-Receptor Antagonists (ARAs) are commonly prescribed but can cause acute kidney injury (AKI) during intercurrent illness. Rates of hospitalization with AKI are increasing. We aimed to determine whether hospital AKI admission rates are associated with increased ACE-I/ARA prescribing.

Methods and Findings

English NHS prescribing data for ACE-I/ARA prescriptions were matched at the level of the general practice to numbers of hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of AKI. Numbers of prescriptions were weighted for the demographic characteristics of general practices by expressing prescribing as rates where the denominator is Age, Sex, and Temporary Resident Originated Prescribing Units (ASTRO-PUs). We performed a mixed-effect Poisson regression to model the number of admissions for AKI occurring in each practice for each of 4 years from 1/4/2007.

From 2007/8-2010/11, crude AKI admission rates increased from 0.38 to 0.57 per 1000 patients (51.6% increase), and national annual ACE-I/ARA prescribing rates increased by 0.032 from 0.202 to 0.234 (15.8% increase). There was strong evidence (p<0.001) that increases in practice-level prescribing of ACE-I/ARA over the study period were associated with an increase in AKI admission rates. The increase in prescribing seen in a typical practice corresponded to an increase in admissions of approximately 5.1% (rate ratio = 1.051 for a 0.03 per ASTRO-PU increase in annual prescribing rate, 95%CI 1.047-1.055). Using the regression model we predict that 1,636 (95%CI 1,540-1,780) AKI admissions would have been avoided if prescribing rates were at the 2007/8 level, equivalent to 14.8% of the total increase in AKI admissions.

Conclusion

In this ecological analysis, up to 15% of the increase in AKI admissions in England over a 4-year time period is potentially attributable to increased prescribing of ACE-I and ARAs. However, these findings are limited by the lack of patient level data such as indication for prescribing and patient characteristics.

Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To determine which aspects of primary care matter most to patients, we aim to identify those aspects of patient experience that show the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction and examine the extent to which these relationships vary by socio-demographic and health characteristics.

DESIGN/SETTING

Data from the 2009/10 English General Practice Patient Survey including 2,169,718 respondents registered with 8362 primary care practices.

MEASURES/ANALYSES

Linear mixed-effects regression models (fixed effects adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, self-reported health, self-reported mental health condition and random practice effect) predicting overall satisfaction from six items covering four domains of care: access, helpfulness of receptionists, doctor communication and nurse communication. Additional models using interactions tested whether associations between patient experience and satisfaction varied by socio-demographic group.

RESULTS

Doctor communication showed the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction (standardized coefficient 0.48, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.48), followed by the helpfulness of reception staff (standardized coefficient 0.22, 95% CI = 0.22, 0.22). Among six measures of patient experience, obtaining appointments in advance showed the weakest relationship with overall satisfaction (standardized coefficient 0.06, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.06). Interactions showed statistically significant but small variation in the importance of drivers across different patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For all patient groups, communication with the doctor is the most important driver of overall satisfaction with primary care in England, along with the helpfulness of receptionists. In contrast, and despite being a policy priority for government, measures of access, including the ability to obtain appointments, were poorly related to overall satisfaction.

The accuracy of diagnostic coding for acute kidney injury in England - a single centre study

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is an independent risk factor for mortality and is responsible for a significant burden of healthcare expenditure, so accurate measurement of its incidence is important. Administrative coding data has been used for assessing AKI incidence, and shows an increasing proportion of hospital bed days attributable to AKI. However, the accuracy of coding for AKI and changes in coding over time have not been studied in England.

METHODS

We studied a random sample of admissions from 2005 and 2010 where ICD-10 code N17 (acute renal failure) was recorded in the administrative coding data at one acute NHS Foundation Trust in England. Using the medical notes and computerised records we examined the demographic and clinical details of these admissions.

RESULTS

Against a 6.3% (95% CI 4.8-7.9%) increase in all non-elective admissions, we found a 64% increase in acute renal failure admissions (95% CI 41%-92%, p < 0.001) in 2010 compared to 2005. Median age was 78 years (IQR 72-87), 11-25% had a relevant pre-admission co-morbidity and 64% (55-73%) were taking drugs known to be associated with AKI. Over both years, 95% (91-99%) of cases examined met the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria for AKI.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with hospital admissions where AKI has been coded are elderly with multiple co-morbidities. Our results demonstrate a high positive predictive value of coding data for a clinical diagnosis of AKI, with no suggestion of marked changes in coding of AKI between 2005 and 2010.

Experiences of care among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD: Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey results

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have special health needs; little is known about their care experiences.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of 2009-2010 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data, using representative random samples of Medicare beneficiaries. Description of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD and investigation of differences in patient experiences by sociodemographic characteristics and coverage type.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected from 823,564 Medicare beneficiaries (3,794 with ESRD) as part of the Medicare CAHPS survey, administered by mail with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents.

PREDICTOR

ESRD status, age, education, self-reported general and mental health status, race/ethnicity, sex, Medicare coverage type, state of residence, and other demographic measures.

OUTCOMES

6 composite measures of patient experience in 4 care domains (access to care, physician communication, customer service, and access to prescription drugs and drug information) and 4 ratings (overall care, personal physician, specialist physician, and prescription drug plan).

RESULTS

Patients with ESRD reported better care experiences than non-ESRD beneficiaries for 7 of 10 measures (P < 0.05) after adjustment for patient characteristics, geography, and coverage type, although to only a small extent (adjusted mean difference, <3 points [scale, 0-100]). Black patients with ESRD and less educated patients were more likely than other patients with ESRD to report poor experiences.

LIMITATIONS

Inability to distinguish patient experiences of care for different treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, beneficiaries with ESRD report patient experiences that are at least as positive as non-ESRD beneficiaries. However, black and less educated patients with ESRD reported worse experiences than other ESRD patients. Stratified reporting of patient experience by race/ethnicity or education in patients with ESRD can be used to monitor this disparity. Physician choice and confidence and trust in physicians may be particularly important for patients with ESRD.

Influences of organizational features of healthcare settings on clinical decision making: qualitative results from a cross-national factorial experiment

A proliferating literature documents cross-national variation in medical practice and seeks to explain observed differences in terms of the presence of certain kinds of healthcare systems, economic, and cultural differences between countries. Less is known about how providers themselves understand these influences and perceive them as relevant to their clinical work. Using qualitative data from a cross-national factorial experiment in the United States and United Kingdom, we analyze 244 primary care physicians' explanations of how organizational features of their respective healthcare settings influence the treatment decisions they made for a vignette patient, including affordability of care; within-system quality deficits; and constraints due to patient behavior. While many differences are attributed to financial constraints deriving from two very differently structured healthcare systems, in other ways they are reflections of cultural and historical expectations regarding medical care, or interactions between the two. Implications, including possible challenges to the implementation of universal care in the USA, are discussed.

Changes in patient experiences of primary care during health service reforms in England between 2003 and 2007

PURPOSE

Major primary care reforms have been introduced in recent years in the United Kingdom, including financial incentives to improve clinical quality and provide more rapid access to care. Little is known about the impact of these changes on patient experience. We examine patient reports of quality of care between 2003 and 2007, including random samples of patients on practice lists and patients with long-term conditions.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional design study of family practices in which questionnaires were sent to serial samples of patients in 42 representative general practices in England. Questionnaires sent to samples of patients with chronic disease (asthma, angina, and diabetes) and random samples of adult patients (excluding patients who reported any long-term condition) in 2003, 2005, and 2007 addressed issues of access, communication, continuity of care, coordination, nursing care, and overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in quality of care reported by either group of patients between 2003 and 2007 for communication, nursing care, coordination, and overall satisfaction. Some aspects of access improved significantly for patients with chronic disease, but not for the random samples of patients. Patients in both samples reported seeing their usual physician less often and gave lower satisfaction ratings for continuity of care. Most scores were significantly higher for the chronic illness samples than for the random samples of patients in 2003, even after adjusting for age.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a modest improvement in access to care for patients with chronic illness, but all patients now find it somewhat harder to obtain continuity of care. This outcome may be related to the incentives to provide rapid appointments or to the increased number of specialized clinics in primary care. The possibility of unintended effects needs to be considered when introducing pay for performance schemes.

A comparison of chronic illness care quality in US and UK family medicine practices prior to pay-for-performance initiatives

BACKGROUND

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has contributed to modest improvements in chronic illness care in the UK. US policymakers have proposed similar pay-for-performance (P4P) approaches to improve care. Since previous studies have not compared chronic illness care quality in US and UK primary care practices prior to the QOF, the relative preparedness of practices to respond to P4P incentives is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare US and UK practices on P4P measures prior to program implementation.

METHODS

We analysed medical record data collected before QOF implementation from randomly selected patients with diabetes or coronary artery disease (CAD) in 42 UK and 55 US family medicine practices. We compared care processes and intermediate outcomes using hierarchical logistic regression.

RESULTS

While we found gaps in chronic illness care quality across both samples, variation was lower in UK practices. UK patients were more likely to receive recommended care processes for diabetes [odds ratio (OR), 8.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.26-18.74] and CAD (OR, 9.18; 95% CI, 5.22-16.17) but less likely to achieve intermediate diabetes outcome targets (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Following National Health Service (NHS) investment in primary care preparedness, but prior to the QOF, UK practices provided more standardized care but did not achieve better intermediate outcomes than a sample of typical US practices. US policymakers should focus on reducing variation in care documentation to ensure the effectiveness of P4P efforts while the NHS should focus on moving from process documentation to better patient outcomes.

Combining multiple indicators of clinical quality: an evaluation of different analytic approaches

OBJECTIVE

To compare different methods of combining quality indicators scores to produce composite scores that summarize the overall performance of health care providers.

METHODS

Five methods for computing a composite quality score were compared: the "All-or-None," the "70% Standard," the "Overall Percentage," the "Indicator Average," and the "Patient Average." The first 2 "criterion-referenced" methods assess the degree to which a provider has reached a threshold for quality of care for each patient (100% or 70%). The remaining "absolute score" methods produce scores representing the proportion of required care successfully provided. Each method was applied to 2 quality indicator datasets, derived from audits of UK family practitioner records. Dataset A included quality indicator data for 1178 patients from 16 family practices covering 23 acute, chronic, and preventative conditions. Dataset B included data on 3285 patients from 60 family practices, covering 3 chronic conditions.

RESULTS

The results varied considerably depending on the method of aggregation used, resulting in substantial differences in how providers scored. The results also varied considerably for the 2 datasets. There was more agreement between methods for dataset B, but for dataset A 6 of the 16 practices moved between the top and bottom quartiles depending upon the method used.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methods of computing composite quality scores can lead to different conclusions being drawn about both relative and absolute quality among health care providers. Different methods are suited to different types of application. The main advantages and disadvantages of each method are described and discussed.

Improvements in quality of clinical care in English general practice 1998-2003: longitudinal observational study

OBJECTIVE

To measure changes in quality of care for three major chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, asthma, and type 2 diabetes) between 1998 and 2003.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

42 general practices in six geographical areas of England (Avon, Bury/Rochdale, Enfield, Oldham, Somerset, South Essex).

PARTICIPANTS

Medical record data for 2300 patients with diabetes, asthma, or coronary heart disease in 1998, and 1495 patients in 2003.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Quality of care assessed against predefined evidence based review criteria.

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2003, quality of care improved markedly in terms of maximum possible scores on the review criteria, from 60.5% to 78.1% for coronary heart disease (change = 17.6, 95% confidence interval 13.9 to 21.4; P < 0.001), 60.1% to 70.3% for asthma (10.2, 4.6 to 15.8; P = 0.001), and 70.4% to 77.7% for diabetes (7.3, 3.5 to 11.1; P = 0.001). Important changes occurred to several indicators potentially related to improved health outcomes. These included improved control of serum cholesterol (to < or = 5 mmol/l) from 17.6% to 61.4% in coronary heart disease and from 21.5% to 52% in diabetes and control of blood pressure to < or = 150/90 in coronary heart disease from 47.3% to 72.2% and to < or = 145/85 in diabetes from 21.8% to 35.8%. A small, non-significant improvement in glycaemic control occurred among diabetic patients (37.9% to 39.7% with HbA1c < 7.4%). Significant improvements also occurred in the recording of exercise capacity and diet and weight advice for patients with coronary heart disease; of smoking advice, peak flow, and symptoms for patients with asthma; and of creatinine, weight, and HbA(1c) for patients with diabetes. Over the five years, more improvement in coronary heart disease care occurred in large practices and practices in affluent areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial improvements were seen in quality of care for the three conditions studied between 1998 and 2003, a time of systematic quality improvement initiatives in the NHS. The changes were most marked for coronary heart disease. English general practices could be expected to achieve high clinical quality scores in the initial year of a new contact, which provides financial incentives for high quality care from 2004.

General practitioner attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy: an examination of clustering within practices and prediction of patient-rated quality of care

BACKGROUND

There is wide variation in the quality of care provided by primary care practices to individuals with chronic illnesses. Individual doctor attitudes and interest have been demonstrated to influence patient outcomes in some instances. Given the trend towards larger practices and part-time working, continuity of care is likely to fall and thus practice-based rather than individual general practitioner attributes and attitudes are likely to become increasingly important. The aim in this paper was to examine the extent to which individual general practitioner (G.P.) attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy cluster within practices and predict patient-rated quality of care.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 1255 people with active epilepsy (a recent seizure or on anti-convulsant medication for epilepsy) and 199 GPs from 82 general practices. Measures of GP attitudes (a 17-item GP attitudes questionnaire) and patient-rated quality of epilepsy care were obtained. 1210 individuals completed initial questionnaires and 975 patients filled in final questionnaires one year later. Responses were achieved from 64 practices (83% of total) and 115 GPs (60% of total).

RESULTS

2 main factors were found to underlie GP attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy and these demonstrated clustering within practices "epilepsy viewed as a primary care responsibility" (Eigenvalue 3.98, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.40), and "medication skills"(Eigenvalue 2.74, ICC 0.35). GP-rated scores on "epilepsy care being a primary care responsibility" were a significant predictor of patient-rated quality of GP care (p = 0.031). Other contributory factors were seizure frequency (p = 0.044), and patient-rated "shared decision making" (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Specific general practitioner attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy cluster within practices and are significantly associated with patient-rated quality of epilepsy care. It is important to take these findings into consideration when planning primary care interventions to ensure people with epilepsy receive the benefits of available medical and surgical expertise.

Improving the quality of mental health services in Personal Medical Services pilots: a longitudinal qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A series of government initiatives in the UK have included strategies to improve the quality of services received by patients, including fundholding, the development of National Service Frameworks, clinical governance, and Personal Medical Services (PMS). PMS represents a new contractual arrangement between government and general practitioners (GPs) which provides new investment in return for more detailed specification of processes and outcomes of care.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of PMS on the quality of primary mental health care between 1998 and 2001.

DESIGN

Multiple longitudinal case studies. Semi-structured interviews with key staff within practices (GPs, nurses, practice managers) and outside (health authority and primary care group/trust managers).

SAMPLE

Six first wave PMS sites which had specifically planned to improve their mental health care.

RESULTS

Improvements in mental health care were found in some PMS practices and not in others. Five mechanisms associated with successful quality improvement in mental health were identified: clear goals, effective teamwork within the practice, routine use of protocols and audits, additional resources, and effective collaboration with community and secondary care. Sites where these factors were not present struggled to meet their objectives.

CONCLUSION

The five mechanisms which resulted in improved mental health care were facilitated by the new contractual arrangements in PMS. The new contracts were not a necessary part of these changes, but they enabled sites with an identified interest and motivation to make the changes. The contractual changes were not in themselves sufficient to improve care.

Assessing the quality of care of multiple conditions in general practice: practical and methodological problems

OBJECTIVE

To investigate practical and methodological problems in assessing the quality of care of multiple conditions in general practice.

SETTING

Sixteen general practices from two socioeconomically diverse regions in the UK.

METHOD

Quality of care was assessed in 100 randomly selected patient records in each practice using an established set of quality indicators covering 23 conditions commonly seen in primary care. Inter-rater reliability assessment was carried out for five of the conditions.

RESULTS

Conducting simultaneous quality assessment across multiple conditions is highly resource intensive. Poor data quality and the low prevalence of some items of care defined by the indicators are significant problems. Scores for individual indicators require very large samples for reliable assessment. Quality scores are more reliable when reported at a higher unit of analysis. This is particularly true for indicators and conditions with low prevalence where data may need to be aggregated to the level of groups of conditions or organisational providers. There is no single ideal way of aggregating quality scores.

CONCLUSION

The study identified some of the practical and methodological difficulties in assessing quality of care across multiple conditions. For improved quality assessment, advances in information technology and improvements in data quality are required for more efficient and reliable data extraction from medical records, together with the development of methods for combining scores across indicators, conditions, and practices. However, electronic data extraction methods will still be based on the assumption that the care recorded reflects the care provided.

Can health care quality indicators be transferred between countries?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the transferability of primary care quality indicators by comparing indicators for common clinical problems developed using the same method in the UK and the USA.

METHOD

Quality indicators developed in the USA for a range of common conditions using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method were applied to 19 common primary care conditions in the UK. The US indicators for the selected conditions were used as a starting point, but the literature reviews were updated and panels of UK primary care practitioners were convened to develop quality indicators applicable to British general practice.

RESULTS

Of 174 indicators covering 18 conditions in the US set for which a direct comparison could be made, 98 (56.3%) had indicators in the UK set which were exactly or nearly equivalent. Some of the differences may have related to differences in the process of developing the indicators, but many appeared to relate to differences in clinical practice or norms of professional behaviour in the two countries. There was a small but non-significant relationship between the strength of evidence for an indicator and the probability of it appearing in both sets of indicators.

CONCLUSION

There are considerable benefits in using work from other settings in developing measures of quality of care. However, indicators cannot simply be transferred directly between countries without an intermediate process to allow for variation in professional culture or clinical practice.

Bias in patient assessments of general practice: general practice assessment survey scores in surgery and postal responders

Patient-based measures of the quality of primary care are increasingly important. However, their effective use requires bias to be minimised. Scores on the General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS) differ according to whether patients are surveyed in the surgery or by post. It is not clear whether these differences relate to the mode of administration or to the types of patients who complete the scale in postal and surgery samples. Regression indicates that the bias reflects both effects and should be considered when GPAS scores are being interpreted.

Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

To field test the reliability, validity, and acceptability of review criteria for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes which had been developed by expert panels using a systematic process to combine evidence with expert opinion.

DESIGN

Statistical analysis of data derived from a clinical audit, and postal questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and practice nurses in a representative sample of general practices in England.

SETTING

60 general practices in England.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical audit results for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes. General practitioner and practice nurse validity ratings from the postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

54%, 59%, and 70% of relevant criteria rated valid by the expert panels for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes, respectively, were found to be usable, valid, reliable, and acceptable for assessing quality of care. General practitioners and practice nurses agreed with panellists that these criteria were valid but not that they should always be recorded in the medical record.

CONCLUSION

Quality measures derived using expert panels need field testing before they can be considered valid, reliable, and acceptable for use in quality assessment. These findings provide additional evidence that the RAND panel method develops valid and reliable review criteria for assessing clinical quality of care.

Primary care and genetic services. Health care in evolution

The demand for services for predicting, diagnosing, and managing genetic diseases or diseases with a genetic component is likely to increase faster than the availability of services from medical geneticists and genetic counselors. Health care systems may also impose limitations on referrals to these specialists. If genetic problems are not to be missed and excessive referrals are to be avoided, non-geneticist practitioners will have to recognize when genetic problems should be considered, and initiate diagnosis and even management. Primary-care-centred systems offer the greatest potential for maximizing overall cost-effectiveness, by reducing the demand for specialty services not essential for improving health. But primary-care-centred systems may pose a risk of underdetection and undermanagement of genetic problems if practitioners are not actively supported by information and other educational networks. Several models for dealing with these challenges are presented, including algorithms that aid in recognizing genetic problems.

Implementing clinical governance in English primary care groups/trusts: reconciling quality improvement and quality assurance

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the concept of clinical governance being advocated by primary care groups/trusts (PCG/Ts), approaches being used to implement clinical governance, and potential barriers to its successful implementation in primary care.

DESIGN

Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and documentation review.

SETTING

Twelve purposively sampled PCG/Ts in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty senior staff including chief executives, clinical governance leads, mental health leads, and lay board members.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' perceptions of the role of clinical governance in PCG/Ts.

RESULTS

PCG/Ts recognise that the successful implementation of clinical governance in general practice will require cultural as well as organisational changes, and the support of practices. They are focusing their energies on supporting practices and getting them involved in quality improvement activities. These activities include, but move beyond, conventional approaches to quality assessment (audit, incentives) to incorporate approaches which emphasise corporate and shared learning. PCG/Ts are also engaged in setting up systems for monitoring quality and for dealing with poor performance. Barriers include structural barriers (weak contractual levers to influence general practices), resource barriers (perceived lack of staff or money), and cultural barriers (suspicion by practice staff or problems overcoming the perceived blame culture associated with quality assessment).

CONCLUSION

PCG/Ts are focusing on setting up systems for implementing clinical governance which seek to emphasise developmental and supportive approaches which will engage health professionals. Progress is intentionally incremental but formidable challenges lie ahead, not least reconciling the dual role of supporting practices while monitoring (and dealing with poor) performance.

Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the quality of clinical care provided outside the hospital sector, despite the increasingly important role of clinical generalists working in primary care. In this study we aimed to summarise published evaluations of the quality of clinical care provided in general practice in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

DESIGN

A systematic review of published studies assessing the quality of clinical care in general practice for the period 1995-9.

SETTING

General practice based care in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Main outcome measures-Study design, sampling strategy and size, clinical conditions studied, quality of care attained for each condition (compared with explicit or implicit standards for the process of care), and country of origin for each study.

RESULTS

Ninety papers fulfilled the entry criteria for the review, 80 from the UK, six from Australia, and four from New Zealand. Two thirds of the studies assessed care in self-selected practices and 20% of the studies were based in single practices. The majority (85.5%) examined the quality of care provided for chronic conditions including cardiovascular disease (22%), hypertension (14%), diabetes (14%), and asthma (13%). A further 12% and 2% examined preventive care and acute conditions, respectively. In almost all studies the processes of care did not attain the standards set out in national guidelines or those set by the researchers themselves. For example, in the highest achieving practices 49% of diabetic patients had had their fundii examined in the previous year and 47% of eligible patients had been prescribed beta blockers after an acute myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adopts an overview of the magnitude and the nature of clinical quality problems in general practice in three countries. Most of the studies in the systematic review come from the UK and the small number of papers from Australia and New Zealand make it more difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care in these two countries. The review helps to identify deficiencies in the research, clinical and policy agendas in a part of the health care system where quality of care has been largely ignored to date. Further work is required to evaluate the quality of clinical care in a representative sample of the population, to identify the reasons for substandard care, and to test strategies to improve the clinical care provided in general practice.

Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study

OBJECTIVES

To assess variation in the quality of care in general practice and identify factors associated with high quality care.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Stratified random sample of 60 general practices in six areas of England.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of management of chronic disease (angina, asthma in adults, and type 2 diabetes) and preventive care (rates of uptake for immunisation and cervical smear), access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal care (general practice assessment survey). Multiple logistic regression with multilevel modelling was used to relate each of the outcome variables to practice size, routine booking interval for consultations, socioeconomic deprivation, and team climate.

RESULTS

Quality of clinical care varied substantially, and access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal care varied moderately. Scores for asthma, diabetes, and angina were 67%, 21%, and 17% higher in practices with 10 minute booking intervals for consultations compared with practices with five minute booking intervals. Diabetes care was better in larger practices and in practices where staff reported better team climate. Access to care was better in small practices. Preventive care was worse in practices located in socioeconomically deprived areas. Scores for satisfaction, continuity of care, and access to care were higher in practices where staff reported better team climate.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer consultation times are essential for providing high quality clinical care. Good teamworking is a key part of providing high quality care across a range of areas and may need specific support if quality of care is to be improved. Additional support is needed to provide preventive care to deprived populations. No single type of practice has a monopoly on high quality care: different types of practice may have different strengths.

Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the quality of clinical care provided outside the hospital sector, despite the increasingly important role of clinical generalists working in primary care. In this study we aimed to summarise published evaluations of the quality of clinical care provided in general practice in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

DESIGN

A systematic review of published studies assessing the quality of clinical care in general practice for the period 1995-9.

SETTING

General practice based care in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Main outcome measures-Study design, sampling strategy and size, clinical conditions studied, quality of care attained for each condition (compared with explicit or implicit standards for the process of care), and country of origin for each study.

RESULTS

Ninety papers fulfilled the entry criteria for the review, 80 from the UK, six from Australia, and four from New Zealand. Two thirds of the studies assessed care in self-selected practices and 20% of the studies were based in single practices. The majority (85.5%) examined the quality of care provided for chronic conditions including cardiovascular disease (22%), hypertension (14%), diabetes (14%), and asthma (13%). A further 12% and 2% examined preventive care and acute conditions, respectively. In almost all studies the processes of care did not attain the standards set out in national guidelines or those set by the researchers themselves. For example, in the highest achieving practices 49% of diabetic patients had had their fundii examined in the previous year and 47% of eligible patients had been prescribed beta blockers after an acute myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adopts an overview of the magnitude and the nature of clinical quality problems in general practice in three countries. Most of the studies in the systematic review come from the UK and the small number of papers from Australia and New Zealand make it more difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care in these two countries. The review helps to identify deficiencies in the research, clinical and policy agendas in a part of the health care system where quality of care has been largely ignored to date. Further work is required to evaluate the quality of clinical care in a representative sample of the population, to identify the reasons for substandard care, and to test strategies to improve the clinical care provided in general practice.

Defining quality of care

This paper defines quality of health care. We suggest that there are two principal dimensions of quality of care for individual patients; access and effectiveness. In essence, do users get the care they need, and is the care effective when they get it? Within effectiveness, we define two key components--effectiveness of clinical care and effectiveness of inter-personal care. These elements are discussed in terms of the structure of the health care system, processes of care, and outcomes resulting from care. The framework relates quality of care to individual patients and we suggest that quality of care is a concept that is at its most meaningful when applied to the individual user of health care. However, care for individuals must placed in the context of providing health care for populations which introduces additional notions of equity and efficiency. We show how this framework can be of practical value by applying the concepts to a set of quality indicators contained within the UK National Performance Assessment Framework and to a set of widely used indicators in the US (HEDIS). In so doing we emphasise the differences between US and UK measures of quality. Using a conceptual framework to describe the totality of quality of care shows which aspects of care any set of quality indicators actually includes and measures and, and which are not included.

Research capacity in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

Moves towards a 'primary care-led' National Health Service (NHS) and towards evidence-based care have focused attention upon the need for evaluative research relating to the structure, delivery, and outcome of primary health care in the United Kingdom (UK). This paper describes work carried out to inform the Department of Health Committee on Research and Development (R&D) in Primary Care (Mant Committee).

AIM

To describe the extent and nature of current research capacity in primary care in the UK and to identify future needs and priorities.

METHOD

Funding data were requested from NHS National Programmes, NHS Executive Regional Offices, the Department of Health (DoH), Scottish Office, Medical Research Council, and some charities. A postal survey was sent to relevant academic departments, and appropriate academic journals were reviewed from 1992 to 1996. In addition, interviews were conducted with academic and professional leaders in primary care.

RESULTS

Overall, total annual primary care R&D spend by the NHS and the DoH was found to be 7% of the total spend, although annual primary care R&D spend differs according to funding source. Journals relating to primary care do not, with some notable exceptions (e.g. British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice), have high academic status, and research into primary care by academic departments is, with perhaps the exception of general practice, on a small scale. The research base of most primary care professions is minimal, and significant barriers were identified that will need addressing if research capacity is to be expanded.

CONCLUSION

There are strong arguments for the development of primary care research in a 'primary care-led' NHS in the UK. However, dashes for growth or attempts to expand capacity from the present infrastructure must be avoided in favour of endeavours to foster a sustainable, long-term research infrastructure capable of responding meaningfully to identified needs.

The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Past observational studies of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method have shown that the composition of panels affects the ratings that are obtained. Panels of mixed physicians make different judgments from panels of single specialty physicians, and physicians who use a procedure are more likely to rate it more highly than those who do not.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of using physicians and health care managers within a panel designed to assess quality indicators for primary care and to test the effect of different types of feedback within the panel process.

METHOD

A two-round postal Delphi survey of health care managers and family physicians rated 240 potential indicators of quality of primary care in the United Kingdom to determine their face validity. Following round one, equal numbers of managers and physicians were randomly allocated to receive either collective (whole sample) or group-only (own professional group only) feedback, thus, creating four subgroups of two single-specialty panels and two mixed panels.

RESULTS

Overall, managers rated the indicators significantly higher than physicians. Second-round scores were moderated by the type of feedback received with those receiving collective feedback influenced by the other professional group.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides further experimental evidence that consensus panel judgments are influenced both by panel composition and by the type of feedback which is given to participants during the panel process. Careful attention must be given to the methods used to conduct consensus panel studies, and methods need to be described in detail when such studies are reported.

Development of review criteria for assessing the quality of management of stable angina, adult asthma, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in general practice

OBJECTIVE

To develop review criteria to assess the quality of care for three major chronic diseases: adult asthma, stable angina, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Modified panel process based upon the RAND/UCLA (University College of Los Angeles) appropriateness method. Three multiprofessional panels made up of general practitioners, hospital specialists, and practice nurses.

RESULTS

The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method of augmenting evidence with expert opinion was used to develop criteria for the care of the three conditions. Of those aspects of care which were rated as necessary by the panels, only 26% (16% asthma, 10% non-insulin dependent diabetes, 40% angina) were subsequently rated by the panels as being based on strong scientific evidence.

CONCLUSION

The results show the importance of a systematic approach to combining evidence with expert opinion to develop review criteria for assessing the quality of three chronic diseases in general practice. The evidence base for the criteria was often incomplete, and explicit methods need to be used to combine evidence with expert opinion where evidence is not available.

Questionnaire study and audit of use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and monitoring in general practice: the need for guidelines to prevent renal failure

OBJECTIVES

To determine the current pattern of use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and monitoring of renal function in general practice and to audit all admissions to a regional renal unit for uraemia related to use of these drugs.

DESIGN

Postal questionnaire sent to 400 general practitioners; audit of clinical notes of all patients receiving these drugs in one large general practice; audit of all cases of uraemia (creatinine concentration >500 micromol/l) related to treatment presenting to hospital renal services over 12 months.

SETTING

General practices in the North Wales health authority and one in central Manchester. Regional renal unit in Salford.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of general practitioners who regularly monitored renal function before and after initiation of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Indications for treatment and details of monitoring of renal function in patients receiving these drugs. Incidence of related uraemia and evidence of comorbid disease, other aetiological factors, delayed detection, and patient outcome.

RESULTS

277 (69%) general practitioners replied; 235 (85%) checked renal function before but only 93 (34%) after the start of treatment, and 42 (15%) never checked renal function. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were prescribed for 162 patients from a total of 3625 aged >35 years (mean age 66.4 (SD 15.9) years). Monitoring of renal function occurred before treatment in 55 (45%) and after start of treatment in 35 (29%) of the 122 patients treated in general practice. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors could be causally implicated in 9 (7%) of 135 admissions for uraemia (mean age 74.2 (7. 2) v 62.1 (2.1) years; P<0.01). 3 patients had renovascular disease and 6 had congestive cardiac failure with another intercurrent illness. Renal function had not been checked in any patient after the start of treatment; mean duration of illness before admission was 10.5 (3.2) days. Mean length of hospital stay was 20.9 (10.4) days; there were 8 survivors.

CONCLUSION

Cases of uraemia related to treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are still encountered and are often detected late because of lack of judicious monitoring of renal function in vulnerable, often elderly, patients, especially at times of intercurrent illness. Guidelines for appropriate monitoring of renal function may help to minimise the problem.

Quality indicators for general practice: which ones can general practitioners and health authority managers agree are important and how useful are they?

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to assess the face validity of quality indicators being proposed for use in general practice by health authorities.

METHOD

A national survey of health authorities was carried out to identify quality indicators being proposed for use in general practice. A two-stage Delphi process was used to establish general practitioners' (GPs') and health authority managers' views on the face validity of identified indicators. A total of 240 separate indicators identified by health authorities and the NHS Executive as potential markers of the quality of general practice care were assessed. Indicators related to access, organizational performance, preventive care, care for a small number of chronic diseases, prescribing and gatekeeping. The subjects were a purposive sample of 47 health authority managers and 57 general practice course organizers.

RESULTS

Thirty-six indicators received median validity scores of 8 or 9 out of a maximum possible score of 9. Of this set, 83 per cent was rated identically by both groups of respondents. Prescribing and gatekeeping indicators generally received low validity scores.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable face valid indicators were identified for all domains except gatekeeping. However, the indicators rated by the sample do not cover all aspects of care. No indicators were proposed for use by health authorities relating to effective communication, care of acute illness, health outcomes or patient evaluation. Although it is possible to develop indicators of general practice care which have face validity in the view of both GPs and managers, these will be very partial measures of quality. In the indicators used in this study, no explicit distinction was made between indicators designed to assess minimum standards with which all practices should comply, and indicators which could be used to reward higher levels of performance. Failure to separate these will result in antagonism from practitioners to quality improvement initiatives in the NHS, and a failure to engage the profession in improving quality of care.

Comparison of teleconsultations and face-to-face consultations: preliminary results of a United Kingdom multicentre teledermatology study

The objective of this multicentre study was to undertake a systematic comparison of face-to-face consultations and teleconsultations performed using low-cost videoconferencing equipment. One hundred and twenty-six patients were enrolled by their general practitioners across three sites. Each patient underwent a teleconsultation with a distant dermatologist followed by a traditional face-to-face consultation with a dermatologist. The main outcome measures were diagnostic concordance rates, management plans and patient and doctor satisfaction. One hundred and fifty-five diagnoses were identified by the face-to-face consultations from the sample of 126 patients. Identical diagnoses were recorded from both types of consultation in 59% of cases. Teledermatology consultations missed a secondary diagnosis in 6% of cases and were unable to make a useful diagnosis in 11% of cases. Wrong diagnoses were made by the teledermatologist in 4% of cases. Dermatologists were able to make a definitive diagnosis by face-to-face consultations in significantly more cases than by teleconsultations (P = 0.001). Where both types of consultation resulted in a single diagnosis there was a high level of agreement (kappa = 0.96, lower 95% confidence limit 0.91-1.00). Overall follow-up rates from both types of consultation were almost identical. Fifty per cent of patients seen could have been managed using a single videoconferenced teleconsultation without any requirement for further specialist intervention. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the teleconsultations. General practitioners reported that 75% of the teleconsultations were of educational benefit. This study illustrates the potential of telemedicine to diagnose and manage dermatology cases referred from primary care. Once the problem of image quality has been addressed, further studies will be required to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a teledermatology service and the potential consequences for the provision of dermatological services in the U.K.

Comparison of out of hours care provided by patients' own general practitioners and commercial deputising services: a randomised controlled trial. II: The outcome of care

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of out of hours care given by general practitioners from patients' own practices and by commercial deputising services.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Four urban areas in Manchester, Salford, Stockport, and Leicester.

SUBJECTS

2152 patients who requested out of hours care, and 49 practice doctors and 183 deputising doctors (61% local principals in general practice) who responded to the requests.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health status outcome, patient satisfaction, and subsequent health service use.

RESULTS

Patients seen by deputising doctors were less satisfied with the care they received. The mean overall satisfaction score for practice doctors was 70.7 (95% confidence interval 68.1 to 73.2) and for deputising doctors 61.8 (59.9 to 63.7). The greatest difference in satisfaction was with the delay in visiting. There were no differences in the change in health or overall health status measured 24 to 120 hours after the out of hours call or subsequent use of the health service in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are more satisfied with the out of hours care provided by practice doctors than that provided by deputising doctors. Organisation of doctors into large groups may produce lower levels of patient satisfaction, especially when associated with increased delays in the time taken to visit. There seem to be no appreciable differences in health outcome between the two types of service.

Comparison of out of hours care provided by patients' own general practitioners and commercial deputising services: a randomised controlled trial. I: The process of care

OBJECTIVE

To compare the process of out of hours care provided by general practitioners from patients' own practices and by commercial deputising services.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Four urban areas in Manchester, Salford, Stockport, and Leicester.

SUBJECTS

2152 patients who requested out of hours care, and 49 practice doctors and 183 deputising doctors (61% local principals) who responded to those requests.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Response to call, time to visit, prescribing, and hospital admissions.

RESULTS

1046 calls were dealt with by practice doctors and 1106 by deputising doctors. Practice doctors were more likely to give telephone advice (20.2% v 0.72% of calls) and to visit more quickly than deputising doctors (median delay 35 minutes v 52 minutes). Practice doctors were less likely than deputising doctors to issue a prescription (56.1% v 63.2% of patients) or to prescribe an antibiotic (43.7% v 61.3% of prescriptions issued) and more likely to prescribe genetic drugs (58.4% v 32.1% of drugs prescribed), cheaper drugs (mean cost per prescription pounds 3.28 v pounds 5.04), and drugs in a predefined out of hours formulary (49.8% v 41.1% of drugs prescribed). There was no significant difference in the number of hospital admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

By contrast with practice doctors, deputising doctors providing out of hours care less readily give telephone advice, take longer to visit at home, and have patterns of prescribing that may be less discriminating.

Evaluation of a computerized appointment system in general practice

Computers have gained rapid acceptance in general practice. A recent development has been the use of computers to run practice appointment systems. This study demonstrates the benefits of installing a computerized appointment system, with improved service for patients, and more efficient use of time by both doctors and receptionists.

Why do people consult the doctor?

BACKGROUND

Symptoms are an everyday part of most peoples' lives and many people with illness do not consult their doctor. The decision to consult is not based simply on the presence or absence of medical problems. Rather it is based on a complex mix of social and psychological factors.

OBJECTIVES

This literature review seeks to explore some of the pathways to care and those factors associated with low and high rates of consultation.

METHODS

The paper examines the impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors on consultation rates and, using a revised version of the Health Belief Model, it highlights the psychological factors which influence decisions to seek medical care. Barriers which can inhibit consultation are discussed, as the decision to seek care will only result in a consultation if there is adequate access to care.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Whilst poor health status and social disadvantage increase both "objective" medical need and in turn, consultation rates, a range of other social and psychological factors have been shown to influence consulting behaviour.

Out of hours primary care centres: characteristics of those attending and declining to attend

OBJECTIVES

To study the number, demography, and clinical details of patients who agreed or refused to attend centralised primary care centres for out of hours medical care and to study the satisfaction with the service of those who attended.

DESIGN

Data collected by telephonists and doctors. Satisfaction questionnaires given to patients who attended.

SETTING

Five out of hours primary care centres in the United Kingdom.

SUBJECTS

All patients contacting the deputising service to request medical help out of hours who were asked to attend a primary care centre. The study terminated when 1000 patients had agreed to attend (200 from each centre). 1000 patients not agreeing to attend were also sampled.

RESULTS

The attendance rate varied from 8.9% to 52.3% in the five centres. The overall standardised attendance rate was 22.4%. The attendance rate was highest in children under 5 (465/2380, 19.5%) and fell with increasing age. Of the 1000 sampled non-attenders, 403 said that they had no transport and 345 said that they were too ill to attend. Those who attended were seen by the doctor more quickly. There was no significant difference between the groups in the number who received a prescription (810 attenders v 820 non-attenders, P = 0.57) or who were admitted to hospital (59 v 52, P = 0.5). Satisfaction with the service among those who attended was very high; 95% (694/731) said that they would be prepared to attend under similar circumstances in the future.

CONCLUSION

Most patients are not able or prepared to attend a central facility for primary care out of hours. Substantial cultural change will be necessary and careful consideration given to planning if such centres are to provide a major part of out of hours care.

Pseudo infantile Refsum's disease: catalase-deficient peroxisomal particles with partial deficiency of plasmalogen synthesis and oxidation of fatty acids

Zellweger syndrome, neonatal adrenoleukodystrophy, and infantile Refsum's disease are genetic disorders characterized by the virtual absence of catalase-positive peroxisomes and a general impairment of peroxisomal functions. Recent studies in these three disorders have provided morphologic evidence of peroxisomal "ghosts" of density 1.10 g/cm3 that contain membrane proteins but lack a majority of the matrix enzyme activities. We report here the biochemical studies in a female infant with clinical features of infantile Refsum's disease whose liver and fibroblasts contained cytosolic catalase but no catalase-positive peroxisomes. Oxidation of phytanic and pipecolic acids was severely impaired, whereas oxidation of very-long-chain fatty acids and dihydroxyacetone phosphate acyltransferase activity were only partially decreased. Immunoblot analysis showed that the three peroxisomal beta-oxidation enzymes (acyl-CoA oxidase, enoyl-CoA hydratase/3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase, and 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase) were detectable in liver tissues. The 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase was of the mature form (41 kD), in contrast with other peroxisomal disorders with multiple enzyme deficiencies. The majority of these peroxisomal enzyme activities were associated with two subcellular membrane vesicle fractions lacking catalase: one had the density of normal peroxisomes (1.17 g/cm3), the other, yet undescribed, a lower density (1.137 g/cm3). This suggests that peroxisomes (density = 1.17 g/cm3) and structures with lower density (density = 1.137 g/cm3) found in this patient's cultured skin fibroblasts, although lacking catalase, contained functional peroxisomal enzymes. This distinguishes this disorder from other disorders of peroxisome biogenesis.

Dementia in general practice: the practical consequences of a more positive approach to diagnosis

General practitioners are often reluctant to administer brief cognitive tests, and to question the relatives of patients who appear to be demented, for fear of causing distress. Diagnoses of dementia are therefore often based on guesswork, and non-demented patients may be rated as cognitively impaired in error. A randomly selected sample of 174 general practice patients aged 80 years and over were asked to complete a simple test of orientation and information in order to assess the usefulness and acceptability of such a procedure. If patients scored 10 points or less out of 12, a relative or other knowledgeable informant was questioned about their changes in mental state and behaviour. Assessments proved acceptable to patients, relatives and doctors; diagnoses were revised in 29 cases; and practical initiatives were proposed in 15 cases. Open discussions with patients and their families proved innocuous and have much to commend them.

General practitioner outpatient referrals: do good doctors refer more patients to hospital?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relation between general practitioners' referral rates to individual specialties and the individual areas of expertise of the referring doctors.

DESIGN

Data collected on referral patterns in one group practice over nine months.

SETTING

General practice in suburban Birmingham consisting of five partners and a trainee.

RESULTS

In 395 referrals there were large differences in referral patterns among partners for otorhinolaryngology, ophthalmology, general surgery, and dermatology. The doctors with particular expertise in otorhinolaryngology and ophthalmology had high referral rates to those specialties, and these differences persisted after allowing for case mix.

CONCLUSION

A high referral rate does not necessarily imply a high level of inappropriate referral.

Improving care: a study of orthopaedic outpatient referrals

OBJECTIVE

To identify aspects of outpatient referral in which general practitioners', consultants', and patients' satisfaction could be improved.

DESIGN

Questionnaire survey of general practitioners, consultant orthopaedic surgeons, and patients referred to an orthopaedic clinic.

SETTING

Orthopaedic clinic, Doncaster Royal Infirmary.

SUBJECTS

628 consecutive patients booked into the orthopaedic clinic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Views of the general practitioners as recorded both when the referral letter was received and again after the patient had been seen, views of the consultants as recorded at the time of the clinic attendance, and views of the patients as recorded immediately after the clinic visit and some time later.

RESULTS

Consultants rated 213 of 449 referrals (42.7%) as possibly or definitely inappropriate, though 373 of 451 patients (82.7%) reported that they were helped by seeing the consultant. Targets for possible improvement included information to general practitioners about available services, communication between general practitioners and consultants, and administrative arrangements in clinics. Long waiting times were a problem, and it seemed that these might be reduced if general practitioners could provide more advice on non-surgical management. Some general practitioners stated that they would value easier telephone access to consultants for management advice. It was considered that an alternative source of management advice on musculoskeletal problems might enable more effective use to be made of specialist orthopaedic resources. Conclusion--A survey of patients' and doctors' views of referrals may be used to identify aspects in which the delivery of care could be made more efficient. Developing agreed referral guidelines might help general practitioners to make more effective use of hospital services.

Understanding hospital referral rates: a user's guide

Detailed referral information from one practice was used to investigate the effect of calculating referral rates in several different ways. Referral rates for individual general practitioners should be related to the number of consultations carried out and not to the number of registered patients; for whole practices list size may be used as the denominator. Most doctors will not need to control for age and sex of patients when comparing referral rates but may need to control for case mix when comparing referral rates to individual specialties. In addition, a method is described for distinguishing systematic variation between the referral rates of individual doctors from the random variation that may arise from data based on fairly small numbers of referrals. The method indicates whether systematic variation is greater than would be expected by chance, and it can be extended to indicate whether variability in referral rates is greater in one specialty than another. Because of random variation with time a year's data may not be sufficient to allow reliable interpretation of referral rates to individual specialties, except for the largest. At present there is no known relation between high or low referral rates and quality of care. Nevertheless, if doctors are to interpret their own rates of referral they need those rates to be reliable and valid. Use of the 10 guidelines described in this paper will help to prevent unwarranted conclusions being drawn from information on general practitioners' rates of referral to hospital.

Analysis of referral behaviour: responses to simulated case histories may not reflect real clinical behaviour

In an attempt to develop a measure of the referral behaviour of general practitioners, 21 simulated case histories were constructed which presented between three and six stages at which a decision was required whether or not refer a 'patient' to hospital. Twenty general practitioners completed the case histories and their responses were compared with their referral rates to outpatient departments. No significant correlations were found between the doctors' responses to the vignettes and their actual referral rates, and the repeatability of the vignettes was disappointing. The fact that the case histories appeared realistic to the doctors who completed them was not reflected in objective measures of their validity. Simulated case histories should not be used as a method of measuring doctors' behaviour without establishing their validity and reliability.

Should performance indicators in general practice relate to whole practices or to individual doctors?

In a study of referrals to East Anglian hospitals 737 referrals in six specialties from three general practices were examined to see how accurately the hospital computer master index had identified the referring practice, the referring general practitioner and the doctor with whom the patient was registered. Although the practice was accurately identified by the hospital computer in 97% of referrals, the identification of the referring doctor and the patient's registered general practitioner were less reliable (72% and 49% respectively). It is concluded that at present the practice rather than the individual doctor may be the appropriate unit of analysis for studies of general practitioners' referral rates. This may be true for other performance indicators where information on a doctor's case mix and workload is not available. The results of this study emphasize that problems may arise if data relating to individual general practitioners are interpreted out of context of the practice and the way in which it is organized.