Do clinical guidelines improve general practice management and referral of infertile couples?

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate guidelines for general practice management and referral of infertile couples. Guidelines were implemented with a disease specific reminder at the time of consultation (the guidelines were embedded within a structured infertility management sheet for each couple). DESIGN--Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Participating practices were randomised to a group that received the guidelines and a control group. SETTING--82 general practices in Grampian region. SUBJECTS--100 couples referred by general practitioners receiving the guideline and 100 couples referred by control general practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Whether the general practitioner had taken a full sexual history and examined and investigated both partners appropriately. RESULTS--Characteristics of patients referred by study and control general practitioners did not differ significantly at baseline. Compliance with the guidelines increased for all targeted activities. General practitioners in the study group were more likely to take a sexual history (for example, couples'' use of fertile period, 85% v 69%, p < 0.01); examine both partners (female partner, 68% v 52%, p < 0.05; male partner 39% v 13%, p < 0.01); and investigate both partners (day 21 progesterone, 72% v 41%, p < 0.001; semen analysis, 51% v 41%, p > 0.05). Improvements were greater when general practitioners used the disease specific reminder. CONCLUSION--Receiving guidelines led to improvements in the process of care of infertile couples within general practice. This effect was enhanced when the guidelines were embedded in a structured infertility management sheet for each couple.     

Responses by general practitioners in Avon to proposals for general practice in the white paper Working for Patients.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the views of Avon''s general practitioners about the general practice proposals within the government''s white paper Working for Patients. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--A county in south west England. SUBJECTS--All general practitioner principals (n = 537) under contract with Avon Family Practitioner Committee. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--492 doctors (92%) responded to the survey. More than three quarters of the respondents were opposed to the government''s proposals on budgets for specific surgical procedures, prescribing, and diagnostic tests; and between 63% and 93% felt negative about advantages that might accrue from the proposals. Over three quarters of general practitioners were in favour of family practitioner committees monitoring work load, prescribing, and referrals. General practitioners in large, potentially budget holding practices held similar views to doctors in smaller practices. CONCLUSIONS--Avon''s general practitioners substantially reject most of the government''s proposals about general practice in the white paper Working for Patients.     

Laboratory and radiological investigations in general practice. I-Type requested and rate of use.

The use that 30 general practitioners in four group practices made of open access laboratory and radiological facilities was studied for one year. We were particularly interested in whether general practitioners hoped to exclude rather than confirm abnormality when requesting investigations. All but two of the general practitioners studied used investigations to exclude abnormality to a greater extent than to confirm it. The rate at which the practices investigated patients and the number of investigations requested were appreciably different and were different for individual general practitioners, part time general practitioners requesting more investigations than trainees and full time general practitioners. Haematological investigations accounted for over 30% of requests for investigations in all but one practice, biochemical investigations being requested as often as bacteriological investigations in two of the four practices. The ratio of expected to unexpected results varied among general practitioners; no general practitioner had more unexpected results and the range of ratios was similar for full time and part time general practitioners and for trainees. The proportion of patients with abnormalities uncovered by each practice increased disproportionately as the use of investigations increased, supporting a higher rather than lower rate of investigation among general practitioners. Compared with the results of other studies the use of the radiological facilities available was low. X ray examinations of the skeleton were requested more than chest and contrast media examinations by three of the four practices. Most x ray examinations were used to exclude rather than confirm abnormality by all the practices, with over 85% of results confirming the general practitioner''s initial diagnosis.     

Evaluation of aid to diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions in general practice: controlled trial randomised by practice

Objectives To determine whether an aid to the diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions reduces the ratio of benign lesions to melanomas excised in general practice.Design Controlled trial randomised by practice.Setting General practices in Perth, Western Australia.Participants 468 general practitioners in 223 practices.Interventions Intervention practices were given an algorithm and instant camera to assist with the diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions. All practices were given national guidelines on managing melanoma.Main outcome measures Ratio of benign pigmented lesions to melanomas excised. Analyses conducted with and without inclusion of seborrhoeic keratoses.Results At baseline the ratios of benign to malignant lesions were lower in the intervention group than in the control group. During the trial period the ratios were higher in the intervention group (19:1 v 17:1 without seborrhoeic keratoses and 29:1 v 26:1 with seborrhoeic keratoses). After adjustment for patients'' age, sex, and socioeconomic status, the ratio was 1.02 times higher (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.51, P = 0.94) in the intervention group when seborrhoeic keratoses were not included and 1.03 times higher (0.71 to 1.50, P = 0.88) when seborrhoeic keratoses were included. General practitioners in the intervention group were less likely than those in the control group to excise the most recent pigmented skin lesion they managed (22% v 48%, P < 0.001) and to refer the patient to a specialist (16% v 27%, P = 0.06).Conclusions Provision of the algorithm and camera did not decrease the ratio of benign pigmented skin lesions to melanomas excised by general practitioners.     

Study of diagnostic accord between general practitioners and an ophthalmologist.

OBJECTIVES--To identify diagnostic accord and disagreement between general practitioners and an ophthalmologist and thereby determine how undergraduate and non-specialist postgraduate ophthalmic training could be improved. DESIGN--Comparison of diagnosis of presenting conditions by general practitioners and one ophthalmologist in patients consulting general practitioners for ophthalmic problems during March 1989 to February 1990. SETTING--12 general practices in west Nottingham. PATIENTS--1474 patients presenting to the study general practitioners with new ophthalmic conditions or new episodes of recurrent conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Diagnoses of general practitioners and ophthalmologist. RESULTS--1121 (76%) of patients with eye problems agreed to see the ophthalmologist and most were seen within three days. Sufficient data for comparison were available on 1103 patients. Diagnostic agreement was found in 638 cases (58%), but potentially serious misdiagnosis was found in only 15 cases; management in three of these cases would have ensured later identification. Most commonly confused conditions were infective and allergic conjunctivitis, blepharitis, and dry eyes. General practitioners assessed visual acuity in only 114 cases yet eight of the 15 patients seriously misdiagnosed had reduced acuity, an important diagnostic sign. CONCLUSIONS--Most ophthalmic disease seen in general practice does not require specialised equipment for diagnosis. Most cases of misdiagnosis have no serious consequences for the patient. Undergraduate and postgraduate training in ophthalmology should ensure that common conditions can be easily differentiated and more serious conditions identified and referred.     

New roles for general practitioners.

General practice is likely to change greatly over the next few years. Increases in care in the community and day surgery will lead to more work, and the demand for better data on practice activity will mean the development of audit and epidemiological work. To make time general practitioners will have to learn to delegate work that does not require a doctor. Fundholding has already stimulated some practices to bring services to patients rather than send patients to hospital, and this trend seems set to continue. It is important to pool resources, not only within practices but among other practices in the area--joint action will increase the ability to improve the services for patients. If general practitioners take the opportunity to gain control of the changes the morale of the profession should improve.     

General practitioner's perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the attitude of general practitioners towards evidence based medicine and their related educational needs. DESIGN: A questionnaire study of general practitioners. SETTING: General practice in the former Wessex region, England. SUBJECTS: Randomly selected sample of 25% of all general practitioners (452), of whom 302 replied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents'' attitude towards evidence based medicine, ability to access and interpret evidence, perceived barriers to practising evidence based medicine, and best method of moving from opinion based to evidence based medicine. RESULTS: Respondents mainly welcomed evidence based medicine and agreed that its practice improves patient care. They had a low level of awareness of extracting journals, review publications, and databases (only 40% knew of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), and, even if aware, many did not use them. In their surgeries 20% had access to bibliographic databases and 17% to the world wide web. Most had some understanding of the technical terms used. The major perceived barrier to practising evidence based medicine was lack of personal time. Respondents thought the most appropriate way to move towards evidence based general practice was by using evidence based guidelines or proposals developed by colleagues. CONCLUSION: Promoting and improving access to summaries of evidence, rather than teaching all general practitioners literature searching and critical appraisal, would be the more appropriate method of encouraging evidence based general practice. General practitioners who are skilled in accessing and interpreting evidence should be encouraged to develop local evidence based guidelines and advice.     

Referral patterns to an ophthalmic outpatient clinic by general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians and the role of these professionals in screening for ocular disease.

Case notes of 1113 consecutive new patients referred to a consultant ophthalmologist at a district general hospital were reviewed to determine the source and efficacy of referrals and the current screening practices of general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians. General practitioners initiated referral in 546 cases (49%) and ophthalmic opticians referral in 439 (39%). Visual loss or visual disturbance was the most important single reason for referral (345 cases; 31%), followed by suspected glaucoma (145 cases; 13%), abnormalities of binocular vision (140; 12.5%), disorders of eyelids or ocular adnexa (127; 11%), and red eye (86; 8%). General practitioners referred many more patients with disorders of the eyelids and adnexa and ophthalmic opticians many more patients with suspected glaucoma. Ophthalmic opticians were far more likely than general practitioners to refer patients with suspected glaucoma correctly. A total of 180 patients (16%) were referred from ocular screening, in 149 cases by ophthalmic opticians and in 10 by general practitioners. Seventy patients had glaucoma or incomplete features of glaucoma, all of them referred by ophthalmic opticians. Of eight diabetic patients referred by ophthalmic opticians, three had asymptomatic disease and in two diabetes was diagnosed as a result of ocular screening. No patient was referred for asymptomatic diabetic retinopathy from screening by general practitioners. Ophthalmic opticians were more likely than general practitioners to diagnose retinopathy requiring photocoagulation. Use of a community based service to screen for glaucoma could save unnecessary consultant outpatient appointments. A similar service could facilitate detection of diabetic retinopathy at a stage when treatment is most effective.     

Use of Radiological Facilities by General Practitioners

The 11,360 direct referrals to diagnostic radiological facilities by general practitioners in the Aberdeen area during 1973 were studied. These represented about 12% of the adult radiology performed in the main x-ray departments of the city, and barium meal examinations amounted to half of all such outpatient contrast examinations. Chest x-ray and barium meal examinations were the most frequently used procedures.Some abnormality was detected at 34% of all examinations, and the barium meal examinations requested by general practitioners showed a similar percentage of abnormal findings to those requested by Aberdeen hospital doctors.The average referral rate for all practices was 24·6 per 1,000 practice population per year. Singlehanded general practitioners referred fewer patients for diagnostic radiology than those working in group practices, and rural practitioners referred fewer than urban general practitioners. This trend was emphasized at a distance greater than 15 miles from the city.     

Rectal examination in general practice.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate factors influencing a general practitioner''s decision to do a rectal examination in patients with anorectal or urinary symptoms. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--General practices in inner London and Devon. SUBJECTS--859 General practitioners, 609 (71%) of whom returned the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Number of rectal examinations done each month; the indication score, derived from answers to a question asking whether the respondent would do a rectal examination for various symptoms; and the confidence score, which indicated the respondent''s confidence in the diagnosis made on rectal examination. RESULTS--279 General practitioners did five or fewer rectal examinations each month and 96 did more than 10 each month. Factors significantly associated with doing fewer rectal examinations were a small partnership and being a female general practitioner, and the expectation that the examination would be repeated. Lack of time in the surgery, and a waiting time of less than two weeks for an urgent outpatient appointment were also important. General practitioners were deterred from doing rectal examinations by reluctance of the patient (278), the expectation that the examination would be repeated (141), and lack of time (123) or a chaperone (39). Confidence in diagnosis was significantly associated with doing more rectal examinations, the perception of having been well taught to do a rectal examination at medical school, and being a male general practitioner. CONCLUSIONS--Factors other than clinical judgment influence the frequency of rectal examination in general practice. Rectal examination may become commoner with the trend towards larger group practices and if diagnostic confidence is increased and greater emphasis put on rectal examination in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching.     

Nationwide study of decisions concerning the end of life in general practice in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE--To gain insight into decisions made in general practice about the end of life. DESIGN--Study I: interviews with 405 physicians. Study II: analysis of death certificates with data obtained on 5197 cases in which decisions about the end of life may have been made. Study III: prospective study with doctors from study I: questionnaires used to collect information about 2257 deaths. The information was representative for all deaths in the Netherlands. RESULTS--Over two fifths of all patients in the Netherlands die at home. General practitioners took fewer decisions about the end of life than hospital doctors and doctors in nursing homes (34%, 40%, and 56% of all dying patients, respectively). Specifically, decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment to prolong life were taken less often. Euthanasia or assisted suicide, however, was performed in 3.2% of all deaths in general practice compared with 1.4% in hospital practice. In over half of the cases concerning pain relief or non-treatment general practitioners did not discuss the decision with the patient, mostly because of incapacity of the patient, but in 20% of cases for "paternalistic" reasons. Older general practitioners discussed such decisions less often with their patients. Colleagues were consulted more often if the general practitioner worked in group practice. CONCLUSION--Differences in work situation between general practitioners and hospital doctors and differences between the group of general practitioners contribute to differences in the number and type of decisions about the end of life as well as in the decision making process.     

Control of infection in general practice: a survey and recommendations.

Twenty general practices in four areas in Britain were surveyed to establish their needs for and practices of sterilising and disinfecting equipment. Of the 327 items of equipment and instruments examined in the survey, 190 were satisfactorily decontaminated, 100 were treated in a way judged to result in doubtful decontamination, and in 37 cases treatment was considered unsatisfactory. Decontamination apparatuses (autoclaves, hot air ovens, and hot water disinfectors) were generally in good working order, but the use of chemical disinfectants was often inappropriate. Recommendations were made on appropriate methods of decontamination for various items in common use in general practice. By virtue of the large numbers of patients treated by general practitioners there is a substantial possibility of transmitting infection; having appropriate methods for decontaminating instruments and equipment is therefore imperative.     

General practitioners in partnership with management: an organisational model for debate.

The role of general practitioners is changing and expanding. Doctors have more control over the treatment received by their patients but remain largely unaccountable to the public and management. This article proposes an organisational model for integrating primary and secondary care which retains the advantages of fund-holding while giving management control over overall strategy. It proposes that general practitioners control funds for all primary and secondary care. Secondary care will be contracted through a joint team of managers and an elected general practice executive committee. A new health care purchasing authority will contract for primary services with individual practices or primary care provider units. General practitioners will have local contracts reflecting their desire to provide an expanded range of services and the needs of the community.     

HIV and measures to control infection in general practice.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the impact of HIV on procedures to control infection in general practices. DESIGN--A postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--General practices throughout Britain. SUBJECTS--5359 General practitioners, 3429 (63.9%) of whom returned the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Response to questionnaire on knowledge about HIV and policies for controlling infection. RESULTS--Most doctors (2018) had started to wear gloves when taking blood. Almost half (1510) had not resheathed needles previously but a further 776 had adopted this policy because of HIV. Over half of the doctors did not know or were unsure about the risk of infection from needlestick injuries, and 1759 had no practice policy for controlling infection. CONCLUSIONS--Many doctors are uncertain about measures to control infection in general practice. More information and advice are needed to help doctors develop policies to protect patients and staff.     

Recruitment,retention, and time commitment change of general practitioners in England and Wales, 1990-4: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the recruitment and retention of general practitioners and changes in their time commitment from 1 October 1990 to 1 October 1994. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of yearly data. SETTING: England and Wales. SUBJECTS: General practitioners in unrestricted practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of general practitioners moving into and out of general practice; proportion of general practitioners practising less than full time; proportion of general practitioners having unchanged time commitment over the study period; and proportion of general practitioners leaving general practice in 1991 who were subsequently practising in 1994. RESULTS: Numbers of general practitioners entering general practice (1565 in 1990, 1400 in 1994) fell over the study period as did the numbers leaving general practice (1488 in 1990, 1115 in 1994). The net effect was an increase in both the total and full time equivalent general practitioners practising from 1 October 1990 (26,757 full time equivalents) to 1 October 1994 (27,063 full time equivalents). Numbers of general practitioners practising full time were decreasing whereas part time practice was increasing; women were more likely to practise part time. 35.5% (43/121) of women practising full time and 17.8% (24/135) of men practising full time who left practice in 1991 were practising again in 1994. CONCLUSION: Simply using total numbers of general practitioners or net increase to describe workforce trends masks much movement in and out of general practice and between differing time commitments. Recruitment and retention issues need to be separated if reasonable policies are to be developed to assure the necessary general practitioner workforce for a primary care led NHS.     

Positive and negative factors in defensive medicine: a questionnaire study of general practitioners.

OBJECTIVES--(a) To investigate defensive medical practices among general practitioners; (b) to compare any such practices with general practitioners'' understanding of certain aspects of the terms of service and medical negligence and practitioners'' concerns about the risk of being sued or having a complaint lodged. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. Each questionnaire was followed by a reminder. SUBJECTS--500 systematically selected general practitioners on the membership list of the Medical Defence Union. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Answers to questions on defensive medical practices, understanding of certain aspects of the terms of service and medical negligence, and concerns about the risk of being sued or having a complaint lodged. RESULTS--300 general practitioners returned the questionnaire (response rate 60%). 294 (98%) claimed to have made some practice changes as a result of the possibility of a patient complaining. Of the defensive medical practices adopted, the most common (over half of doctors stating likely or very likely) seemed to be increased diagnostic testing, increased referrals, increased follow up, and more detailed patient explanations and note taking. Respondents practised defensive medicine as a possible consequence of concerns about the risks of being sued or having a complaint lodged. This association was particularly strong for negative defensive practices. Defensive medical practice did not correlate with any misunderstanding about the law of negligence or the general practitioners'' terms of service. CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners are practising defensive medicine. Some defensive practices such as increased patient explanations or more detailed note taking are clearly beneficial. However, implementing the findings of the Wilson report may increase negative defensive medical practices.     

Heroin users: notifications to the Home Office Addict's Index by general practitioners.

In a study of 113 heroin users who attended a Scottish general practice of 11 doctors information was gathered retrospectively regarding notification of these patients to the Home Office. The doctors were questioned about their practices for notification. Surprisingly few of the patients had been correctly notified and renotified where appropriate, and there was great variation in the doctors'' notification practices, particularly with respect to defining addiction. General practitioners are now the largest source of notifications of controlled drug users, and the statistics issued by the Home Office must be interpreted in the light of their notification practices.     

Quality of care in managing hypertension by case finding in north west London.

The records of patients who were registered with general practice in inner London and outer London (both training and non-training practices) were examined for details of blood pressure recordings. A blood pressure recording was found in the past five years in only 22% of the notes of inner London practices but in 43% of notes in outer London practices, there being no difference between training and non-training practices. In 31% of the notes with a blood pressure recording the blood pressure had been raised (greater than or equal to 160/90) at some time: in 62% of these notes for patients aged 65 or more and in 52% of these notes for patients aged under 65 treatment had been given at some time. Thirty eight per cent of patients in the older group and 33% in the younger group were being treated at the time of the survey, thiazides being the most commonly used drugs. Thirty four per cent of all those with a raised blood pressure at some time had a latest recording of under 90 mm Hg diastolic. There seems to be a continuing need for general practitioners to detect and treat hypertension, and it is suggested that general practitioners should consider using systematic case finding for hypertension in their practices.