General practitioners' management of acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest: relevance to thrombolytic treatment.

A questionnaire was sent to 61 general practitioners who had participated 18 months previously in a study of their experience of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation in acute myocardial infarction. Fifty (82%) replies were received. Only 16 of the 50 respondents thought that every general practitioner should have a defibrillator, but 46 thought that every group practice should have one. Most practitioners felt the need for more tuition and practice in advanced life support, but 15 did not have the practice defibrillator with them when on call. Only nine doctors normally had an electrocardiograph with them when on call, most relying on clinical acumen to make an operational diagnosis; there appeared to be reluctance to use any drugs other than opiates and atropine in the management of acute myocardial infarction. This study highlights the difficulty of maintaining readiness to deal effectively with myocardial infarction in the community and the problems of relying on the electrocardiogram in deciding who should be given thrombolytic treatment.     

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.     

Information systems for general practitioners for quality assessment: I. Responses of the doctors.

A questionnaire was sent to all general practitioner principals in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire (n = 669) to determine (a) the extent to which they would participate in quality assessment activities based on objective evidence of performance and (b) the personal and professional characteristics of interested doctors. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 76% (508 replies). The highest response rates were recorded by trainers (100%), principals in training practices (94%), and younger doctors (80-86%), the lowest by overseas graduates (59%) and older doctors (65%). Distinctive patterns of interest and participation in three types of audit activities were clearly evident. Overall, 61% (310) of respondents wished to be provided with profiles of practice activity from their family practitioner committees, 36% (183) volunteered to participate in a prescribing study, and 34% (172) expressed interest in carrying out an audit in depth. Proportionately, the most enthusiastic and active groups were trainers 88%, 70%, 62%), principals in training practices (74%, 49%, 47%), and members or fellows of the Royal College of General Practitioners (71%, 50%, 45%). Also active were younger doctors, vocationally trained doctors, and principals in large group practices. These figures suggest that roughly 15 000 general practitioners in the United Kingdom would be prepared to participate in performance review activities using information provided by external agencies, 10 000 would if they had to generate some of the information, and 7500 would if they had to produce all the information themselves.     

General practitioners' continuing medical education within and outside their practice.

To study continuing medical education 96 out of 101 general practitioners chosen at random from the list held by a family practitioner committee were interviewed. The results provided little evidence of regular attendance at local postgraduate centre meetings, though practice based educational meetings were common. Thirty one of the general practitioners worked in practices that held one or more practice based educational meetings each month at which the doctors provided the main educational content. Performance review was undertaken in the practices of 51 of the general practitioners, and 80 of the doctors recognised its value. The general practitioners considered that the most valuable educational activities occurred within the practice, the most valued being contact with partners. They asked for increased contact with hospital doctors. The development of general practitioners'' continuing medical education should be based on the content of the individual general practitioner''s day to day work and entail contact with his or her professional colleagues.     

Attitudes of general practitioners to prehospital thrombolysis.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate reasons for general practitioners not giving thrombolytic treatment to eligible patients with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Postal questionnaires were sent to 424 general practitioners. SUBJECTS--97 general practitioners who had taken part in the Grampian region early anistreplase trial, 185 whose practices in Scotland were at least 24 km from a district general hospital, and 142 who had attended postgraduate conferences at which thrombolysis had been discussed; 87, 158, and 125 respectively responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Answers to questions about readiness to use thrombolytic treatment. RESULTS--Response rate was 87% (370/424). Almost all respondents (350) were convinced of benefits of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction, and 277 were convinced that there were additional benefits from its administration in the community at first opportunity. Most doctors working 16 km or more from hospital thought that giving treatment at home would appreciably save time (200/274). Most doctors agreed that they could make time to give thrombolytic treatment (278), and would be willing to record an electrocardiogram (284), and would be able to interpret it (280). Sixty four respondents (17%) reported using thrombolytic treatment in previous year. Among non-users, 150 (49%) were unwilling to use thrombolytic treatment without further training. While many non-users (210 (69%)) were willing to use thrombolytic treatment without encouragement from Department of Health, 184 (60%) were unwilling to use it unless encouraged to do so by their local cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS--The need to become better informed about thrombolysis and lack of encouragement from local cardiologists were important factors preventing wider use of thrombolytic treatment in the community by general practitioners.     

Survey of general practice audit in Leeds.

OBJECTIVE--To determine general practitioners'' attitudes to medical audit and to establish what initiatives are already being undertaken; to define future ideas for audit and perceived difficulties in implementing audit in primary care. DESIGN--Analysis of responses to a self administered postal questionnaire. SETTING--Urban conurbation with a population of about 750,000. PARTICIPANTS--386 general practitioners on the general medical list of Leeds Family Practitioner Committee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Extent of recording of practice activity data and outcome measures and clinical data, use of data, and audit performed; ideas for audit and perceived difficulties. RESULTS--317 doctors responded to the questionnaire (individual response rate 82%) from 121 practices (practice response rate 88%). In all, 206 doctors thought that audit could improve the quality of care; 292 collected practice activity data, though 143 of them did not use it. A total of 111 doctors recorded some outcome measures, though half of them did not use them. Varying proportions of doctors had registers, for various diseases (136 had at least one register), disease management policies (60 doctors), and prescribing policies. In all, 184 doctors met monthly with other members of the primary health care team. CONCLUSIONS--Much poorly focused data collection is taking place. Some doctors have experience in setting up basic information systems and practice policies, and some audit is being performed. The family health services authorities need to take seriously the perceived difficulties of time, organisation, and resources concerned with audit.     

What do Wessex general practitioners think about the structure of hospital vocational training?

OBJECTIVES--To assess the views of general practitioners about the structure and content of hospital vocational training and its relation to the training year. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire. SETTING--Wessex, England. SUBJECTS--General practitioner trainees undertaking practice training year (n = 144), course organisers (n = 22), and a random sample of two thirds of trainers (n = 135). RESULTS--Questionnaires were returned from 86% (260): 84% of trainees (121), 92% of trainers (124), and 68% of course organisers (15). Most respondents in all groups (84.3%, 95% confidence interval 79.7% to 88.8%) wanted more jobs lasting two and three months to allow a greater range of hospital specialties to be experienced and some of the training year to be carried out before hospital jobs (66.3%, 60.4% to 72.1%). Most hospital specialties were rated at least 6 out of 10 as "useful" for general practice training. A substantial minority of training posts did not have regular weekly teaching (166/541; 30.7%, 26.8% to 34.6%) and had no half day (224/541; 41.4%, 37.3% to 45.6%), and over half gave no study leave (293/541; 54.2%, 50.0% to 58.4%). CONCLUSIONS--The structure of hospital training should be reviewed as it does not reflect the views of most trainees, course organisers, or trainers. Individual posts need closer supervision to ensure the availability of basic training requirements. More trainees should be allowed to spend a short time in the general practice before hospital rotations and to choose a greater range of shorter jobs.     

Persistence of divergent views of hospital staff in detecting and managing hypertension.

A questionnaire concerning views of hospital clinical staff was completed by 408 out of 542 staff (75%), comprising 214 medical staff of all clinical specialties, 106 first year clinical medical students, and 88 third year student nurses. On average 386 of 407 (95%) thought that blood pressure should be measured routinely in all inpatients but only 294 of 404 (73%) thought that this was appropriate for outpatients. Although 251 of 390 (64%) were taught to use the muffling of sounds (phase IV) as the diastolic blood pressure, only 219 of 406 (54%) actually used this phase alone. There were appreciable differences between the grades of staff in this respect, a small majority of most grades using phase IV. Roughly half (50 out of 102) of the medical student respondents were taught to use phase IV, but only 38 of 106 (36%) were actually using this phase. While only three out of 16 general practitioners were using phase IV diastolic blood pressure alone, the figure was 66 out of 88 (75%) for student nurses. The level of diastolic blood pressure at which clinicians would begin to treat a 50 year old asymptomatic man ranged from 90 to 121 mm Hg. When these figures were corrected to phase V values, assuming a 5 mm Hg difference between phases IV and V, the range was 85 to 116 mm Hg. Despite the general agreement among physicians interested in hypertension that the disappearance of sounds (phase V) should be used to denote diastolic blood pressure there is still considerable divergence of opinion among hospital medical staff.     

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.     

Patients' and general practitioners' satisfaction with information given on discharge from hospital: audit of a new information card.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the attitudes of patients discharged from hospital and their general practitioners to a new information card giving details about admission, diagnosis, and treatment and to assess the completeness of the information on the card. DESIGN--Consecutive patients discharged from the care of three consultant physicians over 16 weeks. SETTING--One general medical ward in a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS--A total of 275 consecutive discharges of 258 patients were studied. The mean age of patients was 60 years and mean duration of admission five days. INTERVENTION--At discharge from the ward all study patients received an information card and a copy of the card in the form of an interim discharge letter to be delivered to their general practitioner. Patients and general practitioners were asked to complete a questionnaire giving their views on the legibility, helpfulness, quality, and quantity of the information they received. Copies of all the information cards were scrutinised for completeness. MAIN RESULTS--The results were based on 208 (76%) forms returned by patients and 214 (78%) forms returned by general practitioners. Information was considered very helpful or quite helpful according to 170 (83%) forms from patients and 197 (92%) forms from general practitioners; sufficient information was provided according to 160 and 182 forms. Most patients and nearly all general practitioners thought it was a good idea to provide this information for patients at discharge. According to 125 forms from patients and 188 from general practitioners the information card was very easy or quite easy to read; 155 patients had read it at least twice and 149 were likely to refer to it again. OTHER RESULTS--The written information about the patient, the diagnosis, and what the patient had been told was generally well completed, although the date of discharge was omitted from 42 (15%) cards. Details of drugs prescribed at discharge were generally thorough. CONCLUSIONS--Giving an information card to all patients at discharge was feasible and favoured by most patients and their general practitioners. Having made minor changes in design, we think that we have produced an information card that is a convenient size and will improve communication between patients, their general practitioners, and hospital doctors. We now issue this card routinely to all patients discharged from our ward and hope that it might be widely adopted.     

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.     

Low levels of ill health among elderly non-consulters in general practice.

The characteristics of random samples of elderly patients (over 65 years of age), designated as consulters (n = 200) and non-consulters (n = 196), in a group general practice were compared using a postal questionnaire that was validated by comparison with findings by general practitioners in a random sample of 58 responders. A response rate of 90% was obtained, and all non-responders were visited by their general practitioner. The questionnaire had a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 82% when compared with general practitioner findings. The use of hospital and social services by non-consulters was low in this practice. Measures of disability and state of health showed that non-consulters were a fit group of the aged. Case finding for problems among elderly people should initially be confined to consulters, who have a high prevalence of problems. Non-consulters are a low risk group that can be assessed only with special effort and extra resources. Once an effective case finding system has been developed it might then be reasonable to consider ways of finding the few patients who have problems but do not consult their doctor.     

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.     

Communication between general practitioners and consultants: what should their letters contain?

OBJECTIVE--To canvass the views of all general practitioners and consultants working in Newcastle upon Tyne on the content of referral letters and replies, the feasibility of standardising certain aspects of referral letters, and the use of communications data for audit purposes. DESIGN--A postal questionnaire was sent to all general practitioners and consultants in Newcastle upon Tyne in May 1991. Questions were asked about the clinical and administrative content of letters, the utility of standard categories to state the reason for referral, the idea of using letters for feedback purposes, and communications as a potential topic for professionally led audit. SETTING--Area served by Newcastle upon Tyne Family Health Services Authority and District Health Authority. RESULTS--Replies were received from 274 (77%) doctors (115 general practitioners and 159 consultants). A majority (225; 82%) were in favour of items defined as "always important" forming a minimum requirement for referral letters and for consultants'' replies. Using standardised categories to state the reason for referral was not endorsed: 102 (89%) general practitioners and 132 (83%) consultants preferred referrers to use their own words. Using referral communications to provide feedback was less popular with consultants (54; 34%) than general practitioners (72; 63%). Finally, a majority of doctors (179; 65%) were in favour of using written communications as a topic for professionally led audit. CONCLUSIONS--A high degree of consensus exists among clinicians about the content of referral communications. Although doctors may still reject the concept of standardised communications, they have unambiguously endorsed a standard for communication that they can aspire to, and they are prepared to use it as a yardstick for their actual performance.     

General practitioners' responsibilities to their patients.

The views of general practitioners about their responsibilities for patient care have not been canvassed. A survey of general practitioners was therefore carried out to determine their views. A postal questionnaire, in which general practitioners were asked what they saw as their responsibilities, was sent to 525 principals in Avon and completed by 424, giving a response rate of 81%. The doctors generally agreed that their responsibilities for patient care included problems related to internal medicine, such as managing diabetes and hypertension. Less consensus was found in the replies to questions about technical procedures, such as resection of ingrowing toenails, and gynaecological, orthopaedic, or psychosocial problems. The results supported the view that general practitioners are gradually abandoning technical aspects of medicine to specialists without a compensating role having been defined. In the light of this trend the responsibilities of general practitioners should be clearly defined by the profession.     

Diabetes,driving, and the general practitioner.

The medical fitness of drivers who have diabetes is assessed primarily by general practitioners. A survey was made of the knowledge of driving and diabetes of 105 general practitioners in Glasgow. Ninety four (90%) knew that people who were insulin dependent were required by law to declare their condition to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea, but most were unaware that people with diabetes should not hold a "till 70" driving licence. Seventy one doctors (69%) claimed that patients were recalled individually for fitness to drive. The minimum visual acuity for driving was stated correctly by 37 (35%). Only eight respondents knew that a hypoglycaemic diabetic driver can be charged with driving under the influence of a drug (Road Traffic Act 1972), and the practical advice that was given to patients about hypoglycaemia and driving was unsatisfactory. As a group the general practitioners showed deficiencies in knowledge regarding diabetes and driving, suggesting a need for further postgraduate education.     

Young doctors' views on alternative medicine.

A survey was undertaken to explore attitudes to alternative medicine among 100 general practitioner trainees. A positive attitude emerged from the 86 respondents, with 18 doctors using at least one alternative method themselves and 70 wanting to train in one or more. A total of 31 trainees had referred patients for such treatments; 12 of these doctors made referrals to non-medically qualified practitioners. The most commonly used alternative treatments were hypnosis, manipulation, homoeopathy, and acupuncture. A total of 22 doctors had been treated, or had treated themselves, by an alternative treatment, and this personal experience was linked to a greater professional use. These findings indicate that alternative methods of treatment are currently being used to complement orthodox medicine and an expansion in their use appears imminent.