Contribution of general practitioner hospitals in Scotland.

The results of a survey of 64 Scottish general practitioner hospitals showed that in 1980 these hospitals contained 3.3% of available staffed beds in Scotland; 13.6% of the resident population had access for initial hospital care, and 14.5% of Scottish general practitioners were on their staffs. During the year of the survey they discharged 1.8% of all non-surgical patients, treated almost 100 000 patients for accidents and emergencies and 140 000 outpatients, and 4.4% of all deliveries in Scotland were carried out in the hospitals surveyed. Most communities which are served by general practitioner hospitals in Scotland are rural and on average are more than 30 miles from their nearest district general hospital. The contribution that these small hospitals make to the overall hospital workload has not previously been estimated. It has been shown nationally to be small but not inconsiderable . In terms of the contribution to the health care of the communities they serve it cannot and should not be underestimated.     

General-practitioner Hospital Beds: A Review

This paper reviews literature related to general-practitioner hospital beds. In England and Wales 21% of all maternity beds are controlled by general practitioners rather than consultants, and the proportion has increased considerably since 1955. Nearly one in five of these 21% are sited in the wards of a consultant hospital. General-practitioner beds, other than maternity, represent 3% of all hospital beds (excluding psychiatric beds) and this proportion has remained constant over the past 15 years. Only about 1% of these general-practitioner beds are located in a consultant hospital.In the discussion three questions are raised: Will general-practitioner inpatient care have a useful function in the future? What might that function be? Where should the care be located? The broader issue of the future role of the general practitioner needs to be considered before these questions can be satisfactorily answered. Unless a “hospital orientated” role of the general practitioner prevails there seems little place for practitioner inpatient care in urban areas. In the more rural areas, however, whatever the role of the practitioner becomes, certain groups of patients might advantageously receive inpatient care from their practitioners. Firmer answers to the questions raised cannot be given until a co-ordinated programme of research and development concerning different patterns of care is started.     

Specialist outreach clinics in general practice.

OBJECTIVES--To establish the extent and nature of specialist outreach clinics in primary care and to describe specialists'' and general practitioners'' views on outreach clinics. DESIGN--Telephone interviews with hospital managers. Postal questionnaire surveys of specialists and general practitioners. SETTING--50 hospitals in England and Wales. SUBJECTS--50 hospital managers, all of whom responded. 96 specialists and 88 general practitioners involved in outreach clinics in general practice, of whom 69 (72%) and 46 (52%) respectively completed questionnaires. 122 additional general practitioner fundholders, of whom 72 (59%) completed questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Number of specialist outreach clinics; organisation and referral mechanism; waiting times; perceived benefits and problems. RESULTS--28 of the hospitals had a total of 96 outreach clinics, and 32 fundholders identified a further 61 clinics. These clinics covered psychiatry (43), medical specialties (38), and surgical specialties (76). Patients were seen by the consultant in 96% (107) of clinics and general practitioners attended at only six clinics. 61 outreach clinics had shorter waiting times for first outpatient appointment than hospital clinics. The most commonly reported benefits for patients were ease of access and shorter waiting times. CONCLUSIONS--Specialist outreach clinics cover a wide range of specialties and are popular, especially in fundholding practices. These clinics do not seem to have increased the interaction between general practitioners and specialists.     

Alternatives to hospital care: what are they and who should decide?

OBJECTIVE--To examine potential for alternatives to care in hospitals for acute admissions, and to compare the decisions about these alternatives made by clinicians with different backgrounds. DESIGN--Standardised tool was used to identify patients who could potentially be treated in an alternative form of care. Information about such patients was assessed by three panels of clinicians: general practitioners without experience of general practitioner beds, general practitioners with experience of general practitioner beds, and consultants. SETTING--One hospital for acute admissions in a rural area of the South and West region of England. SUBJECTS--Of 620 patients admitted to specialties of general medicine and care of the elderly, details of 112 were assessed by panels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proportion of hospitalised patients who could have received alternative care and identification of most appropriate alternative form of care. RESULTS--Both general practitioner panels estimated that between 51 and 89 of the hospitalised patients could have received alternative care (equivalent to 8-14% of all admissions). Consultants estimated that between 25 and 55 patients could have had alternative care (5.5-9% of all admissions). General practitioner bed and urgent outpatient appointment were the main alternatives chosen by all three panels. CONCLUSION--About 10% of admissions to general hospital might be suitable for alternative forms of care. Doctors with different backgrounds made similar overall assessments of most appropriate forms of care.     

General practitioner obstetrics in the Northern region in 1983.

In late 1983 a four page questionnaire on general practitioner obstetrics was sent to a 50% random sample of general practitioners in the Northern region of England; 84% responded. Half of them said that they had access to general practitioner facilities for delivery, and half of these used them. A quarter of all respondents had provided intranatal care previously but had given it up, most of them during the late 1970s. Younger general practitioners were more highly qualified in obstetrics than older ones but did not do more intranatal work. Isolated general practitioner maternity units were much more likely to be used than those that were alongside consultant units or integrated with them. Ninety per cent of respondents provided antenatal care, 77% of these at special clinics and 88% with midwives in attendance. Teamwork, however, was not well developed. Increasing general practitioner participation in obstetric care seems feasible but depends heavily on more appropriate training and intranatal facilities being provided for general practitioners in association with specialist units.     

Findings of a national survey of the role of general practitioners in the treatment of opiate misuse: extent of contact with opiate misusers.

With the recent unprecedented growth in the spread of drug misuse in the United Kingdom the role of the general practitioner has become more and more prominent, both in response to demands for treatment and as the focus of national policy on drug misuse. Although general practitioners may be the first contact, few data are available on the extent of their contact with drug misusers. A postal survey was carried out in mid-1985 of a 5% national sample of general practitioners in England and Wales concerning their role in and views on the treatment of opiate misusers, including the extent of their contact with such patients during a four week period. Of the 1166 general practitioners surveyed, 845 replied, a response rate of 72%. The results show that roughly one in five general practitioners in England and Wales attended an opiate misuser during this four week period, seeing an estimated 6000 to 9000 patients, one third of whom were "new" to the general practitioner. A cautious estimate of between 30,000 and 44,000 new cases of opiate misuse presenting to general practitioners in a year is suggested, with some adjustment necessary because of double counting. A wide variation in the prevalence of consultations among regional health authorities was found, and several of the regions with a high prevalence are outside the London area. The scale of contact thus confirms the importance of the general practitioner in the national response to drug misuse.     

Prescribing at the hospital-general practice interface. II: Impact of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England on general practitioners and hospital consultants.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the impact on general practitioners and hospital consultants of hospital outpatient dispensing policies in England. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire and telephone interview survey of general practitioners and hospital consultants in January 1991. SETTING--94 selected major acute hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS--20 general practitioners in the vicinity of each of 94 selected hospitals and eight consultants from each, selected by chief pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proportions of general practitioners unable to assume responsibility for specialist drugs and of consultants wishing to retain responsibility; association between dispensing restrictions and the frequency of general practitioners being asked to prescribe hospital initiated treatments. RESULTS--Completed questionnaires were obtained from 1207 (64%) of 1887 general practitioners and 457 (63%) of 729 consultants. 570 (46%) general practitioners felt unable to take responsibility for certain treatments, principally because of difficulty in detecting side effects (367, 30%), uncertainty about explaining treatment to patients (332, 28%), and difficulty monitoring dosage (294, 24%). Among consultants 328 (72%) wished to retain responsibility, principally because of specialist need for monitoring (93, 20%), urgent need to commence treatment (64, 14%), and specialist need to initiate or stabilise treatment (63, 14%). The more restricted the drug supply to outpatients, the more frequently consultants asked general practitioners to prescribe (p less than 0.01) and complete a short course of treatment initiated by the hospital (p less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS--Restrictive hospital outpatient dispensing shifts clinical responsibility on to general practitioners. Hospital doctors should be able to retain responsibility for prescribing when the general practitioner is unfamiliar with the drug or there is a specialist need to initiate, stabilise, or monitor treatment.     

Comparative Study of District and Community Hospitals

Opinions conflict on whether there is a place in the Health Service for general practitioner (community) hospitals in which the patients'' treatment is mainly the responsibility of their family doctors. The authors therefore analysed a sample of the patients admitted in the course of a year to a group of two general district hospitals with a comparable sample of the patients admitted to a general practitioner hospital. The aim was to analyse the type of care provided in the general practitioner hospital, to assess whether it was appropriate for the type of cases treated, and to decide whether the patients would have been better off in the district general hospital (and vice versa). The main conclusions are that a district hospital is best for serious illnesses needing skilled decisions and assessments but that most of the work of these hospitals is not of this kind and a community hospital staffed by general practitioners offers many advantages to patients—provided the work being done is constantly under critical assessment. The authors plead for special refresher courses under the N.H.S. for general practitioners working in community hospitals.     

Nurse practitioners in accident and emergency departments: what do they do?

OBJECTIVE--To determine the distribution and scope of nurse practitioner schemes in accident and emergency departments in England and Wales; to describe the caseloads of doctors and nurse practitioners on two representative days; and to estimate the number of patients managed by nurse practitioners in the year to 31 March 1991. DESIGN--A postal survey of accident and emergency departments and a content analysis of case notes of new patients attending a representative sample of accident and emergency departments on two days. SETTING--All accident and emergency departments in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS--Survey: 560 nurses in charge of accident and emergency departments. Census: case notes of 5814 patients in 37 accident and emergency departments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Survey: number of accident and emergency departments with nurse practitioner schemes. Census: demographic and clinical characteristics of new patients attending and whether nurse practitioner or doctor made diagnoses and ordered investigations, treatments, referrals, discharges. RESULTS--513 replies (92%) from 465 surveyed functioning accident and emergency departments and 48 departments recently closed. 27 (6%) departments used designated nurse practitioners and 159 (34%) "unofficial" nurse practitioners. Only 530 (9%) of the 5814 patients in the census were managed entirely or mainly by nurse practitioners, with higher proportions in ophthalmic departments (nearly 30%) and minor casualty departments (over 40%) than in major departments (3%). Most patients managed by nurse practitioners (86%) had minor trauma. In the year ending 31 March 1991 an estimated 390,000 (95% confidence interval 260,000 to 520,000) patients out of a total of 12.5 million (3.1%, 2.1% to 4.1%) were clinically managed by a nurse practitioner. CONCLUSIONS--Designated nurse practitioner schemes are rare. The volume and range of nurse practitioner work in major general accident and emergency departments is small compared with those in specialised and minor accident and emergency departments.     

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.     

Underprivileged areas: validation and distribution of scores.

Underprivileged areas were identified by weighting several census variables that relate to social conditions, by using weights determined by means of a questionnaire sent to one in 10 of the general practitioners in the United Kingdom. The weighted variables were added (after statistical manipulation) to give a score for each of the 9265 electoral wards in England and Wales. Blank ward maps were sent to general practitioners in five family practitioner committee areas and they were asked to shade the wards according to the degree to which the population increased their workload or the pressure on their services. Maps of these same areas were then prepared by using the calculated scores with the cut off points between the worst, the intermediate, and the best areas as on those used by the general practitioners. The two sets of maps were then compared to determine how well the maps that were based on scores agreed with the general practitioners'' maps showing their assessment of the variation of workload in their areas. Overall, 6.3% of the wards differed in shading in any way between the two sets of maps. In the three areas where the general practitioners shaded complete wards and did not report having difficulties with shading only 1.2% of the wards differed. It may be possible to use these "underprivileged area" scores to indicate where problems occur for general practitioners and to extend this work to other primary health care workers.     

One thousand heart attacks in Grampian: the place of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in general practice.

The outcome of 1011 heart attacks in patients under the care of general practitioners who practised cardiopulmonary resuscitation and were equipped with defibrillators is reported. The 28 day mortality was 36% (367 patients), and 59% of deaths occurred outside hospital. The general practitioner was the first medical contact in 92% of heart attacks and was equipped with a defibrillator in 80% of such calls. Fifty six patients had a cardiac arrest in the presence of a general practitioner, and resuscitation was attempted in 47 cases, representing 5% of all calls for heart attacks. Twenty one (45%) resuscitated patients reached hospital alive, and 13 (28%) survived to leave hospital. The opportunities for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in general practice occur sufficiently often to warrant training and equipping general practitioners for advanced life support. The results of resuscitation by general practitioners working alone compare favourably with those of mobile coronary care units based in hospitals.     

Hospital visiting hours: time for improvement

In a survey of hospital visiting hours in general medical and surgical wards throughout the United Kingdom a pattern of visiting emerged showing that many hospitals still have very restricted visiting. A quarter of the 404 hospitals that responded permitted visiting for an average of two hours a day or less. In contrast, just over a third of hospitals allowed visiting for more than five hours a day. There was no relation between visiting times and type of hospital, but a striking regional variation in visiting hours was found, with more liberal visiting in south east England and restricted visiting in northern England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.     

Findings of a national survey of the role of general practitioners in the treatment of opiate misuse: dealing with the opiate misuser.

Because there has been a substantial increase in the scale of drug misuse general practitioners have become increasingly concerned in responding to this problem. Little is known, however, about how general practitioners manage drug misusers. The findings from a national survey carried out in mid-1985 of a 5% random sample of general practitioners in England and Wales show the extent to which various actions were undertaken by general practitioners who reported on the consultation with the opiate misuser whom they last attended. In more than half of the cases the opiate misuser had been under the care of the general practitioners for this problem for at least six months. The findings indicate that most general practitioners refer these patients to specialist drug dependence clinics or to general psychiatric services but rarely to other agencies. Opiate drugs had been prescribed in nearly a third of cases. The rate of notification to the Home Office conforms with that in other studies and indicates a high degree of undernotification. More detailed study of general practitioners'' activities in managing drug misusers is needed.     

Use of non-orthodox and conventional health care in Great Britain.

OBJECTIVE--To describe the characteristics of patients using non-orthodox health care and their pattern of use of conventional health care with respect to a particular problem. DESIGN--Postal survey of all 2152 practitioners of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and osteopathy identified from 11 national professional association registers. Patients attending a representative sample of 101 responding practitioners completed questionnaires covering demographic characteristics, presenting problems, and use of the health service. SETTING--Practices of practitioners of non-orthodox health care in England, Scotland, and Wales. SUBJECTS--Qualified, non-medical practitioners of non-orthodox health care working in Great Britain and 2473 patients who had attended one of the sampled practitioners in an allocated time period between August 1987 and July 1988. RESULTS--An estimated 1909 practitioners were actively practising one of the study treatments in Great Britain in 1987. Of the estimated 70,600 patients seen by this group of practitioners in an average week, most (78%) were attending with a musculoskeletal problem. Two thirds of the patients were women. Only 2% were aged under 16, but 15% were aged 65 or over. One in three patients had not received previous conventional care for their main problem; 18% were receiving concurrent non-orthodox and conventional care. Twenty two per cent of the patients reported having seen their general practitioner for any reason in the two weeks before the surveyed consultation. CONCLUSIONS--Patients of non-orthodox health care, as provided by this group of practitioners, had not turned their backs on conventional health care. Non-orthodox treatment was sought for a limited range of problems and used most frequently as a supplement to orthodox medicine.     

Contribution of isolated general practitioner maternity units.

A postal survey of isolated general practitioner maternity units in England and Wales showed that just under 4% of deliveries take place in them. Eight per cent of general practitioners are on the staffs, and in 87% of units midwives are integrated with the community midwifery service. Sixty two per cent of units have visiting consultant cover. Fifty seven per cent of patients are booked and delivered in the unit, 28% are booked and deliberately delivered elsewhere, 5% are transferred in the antenatal period, and 10% transferred as emergencies. The perinatal mortality rate for cases booked and delivered in the units is 1.1 per 1000. The number of emergency transfers was appreciably less for those units that were prepared to do their own operations. Thirty five per cent of these units are liable to be cut off in bad weather, and they will continue to fulfil an essential role in the midwifery services.     

Combining specialist and primary health care teams for HIV positive patients: retrospective and prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a model of health care for HIV positive patients involving specialist, hospital based teams and primary health care teams. DESIGN: One year retrospective and a 2 1/2 year prospective study. SETTING: Two hospitals in West London and 88 general practitioners in 72 general hospitals. SUBJECTS: 209 adults with HIV infection. INTERVENTION: General practitioners enrolled in the project were faxed structured outpatient clinic summaries. When hospital inpatients were discharged, a brief discharge summary was faxed. General practitioners had access to consultant physicians skilled in HIV medicine through a 24 hour mobile telephone service. An HIV/AIDS management and treatment guide containing relevant local information was produced. Quarterly discussion forums for general practitioners were held, and a regular newsletter was produced. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital attendance and general practitioner consultations; perceived benefits and problems of patients and general practitioners. RESULTS: The average length of a hospital inpatient stay was halved for those patients who had participated in the project for two years, and the average number of visits to the outpatient clinic per month fell for patients with AIDS. There was a substantial increase in the number of visits to general practitioners by patients with AIDS and symptomatic HIV infection. Patients and general practitioners both felt that the standard of health care provided had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model of health care efficiently and effectively utilised existing teams of hospital and primary health care professionals to provide care for HIV positive patients. Simple, prompt, and regular communication systems which provided information relevant to the needs of general practitioners were central to its success.     

Mental health,job satisfaction,and job stress among general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE--To identify sources of job stress associated with high levels of job dissatisfaction and negative mental wellbeing among general practitioners in England. DESIGN--Multivariate analysis of large database of general practitioners compiled from results of confidential questionnaire survey. Data obtained on independent variables of job stress, demographic factors, and personality. Dependent variables were mental health, job satisfaction, alcohol consumption, and smoking. SETTING--National sample of general practitioners studied by university department of organisational psychology. SUBJECTS--One thousand eight hundred seventeen general practitioners selected at random by 20 family practitioner committees in England. INTERVENTIONS--None. END POINT--Determination of the combination of independent variables that were predictive of mental health and job satisfaction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--Women general practitioners both had job satisfaction and showed positive signs of mental wellbeing in contrast with other normative groups. Conversely, male doctors showed significantly higher anxiety scores than the norms, had less job satisfaction, and drank more alcohol than their women counterparts. Multivariate analysis disclosed four job stressors that were predictive of high levels of job dissatisfaction and lack of mental wellbeing; these were demands of the job and patients'' expectations, interference with family life, constant interruptions at work and home, and practice administration. CONCLUSIONS--There may be substantial benefit in providing a counselling service for general practitioners and other health care workers who suffer psychological pressure from their work.     

Findings of a national survey of the role of general practitioners in the treatment of opiate misuse: views on treatment.

An important component of government policy on services for drug misusers is to encourage general practitioners to take a more active role. There are, however, some indications that general practitioners regard drug misusers as undesirable patients, although no evidence is available. As part of a wider investigation of the role of general practitioners in the treatment of opiate misuse, a questionnaire, which was sent in mid-1985 to a 5% random sample of general practitioners in England and Wales, included a section designed to elicit their views on policy and treatment connected with opiate misuse. The results showed that although most general practitioners consider opiate misuse to be a priority concern for the Health Service, they also generally regard opiate misusers as especially difficult to manage, beyond their competence to treat, and less acceptable as patients than others in need of care. General practitioners who have qualified recently were somewhat less unfavourable in their views. These findings suggest that the effective implementation of government policy will require trying to modify general practitioners'' attitudes and providing support for them.