Consultations in general practice: a comparison of patients' and doctors' satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE--To provide an objective means of assessing patients'' and doctors'' satisfaction with a consultation. DESIGN--Questionnaire study of patients and general practitioners after consultations. SETTING--Urban general practice. SUBJECTS--250 Patients attending consecutive consultations conducted by five general practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Identification of deficiencies within a consultation as perceived by both doctors and patients. RESULTS--The doctor''s and patient''s questionnaires for each consultation were matched and the results analysed on a group basis. The response rate for individual questions was high (81-89%). The doctors and patients significantly disagreed about the doctors'' ability to assess and put patients at ease, to offer explanations and advice on treatment, and to allow expression of emotional feelings and about the overall benefit that the patients gained from the consultation. In all cases of disagreement the doctor had a more negative view of the consultation than the patient. CONCLUSIONS--The results of giving structured questionnaires on consultations to both patients and doctors could be a useful teaching tool for established doctors or those in training to improve the quality and sensitivity of care they provide.     

The Influences of Group and Independent General Practice on Patient Care: A Comparative Study in Ontario

When the practices of four general practitioners, members of multispecialist-general practitioner salaried groups (clinic doctors) were compared with those of four independent general practitioners (solo practitioners), it was noted that: group practice patients had more office laboratory investigation and greater in-hospital consultation and referral. On the other hand, independent practitioners'' patients seemed to receive more personal attention from the doctor, a fuller explanation of diagnosis and treatment during office hours, more drug samples and more laboratory investigation in hospital.Group and independent practices are similar with respect to the rate of follow-up visits, the volume of preventive medicine, the number of radiographs and special procedures, the total number of drugs ordered, and the in-hospital formal written consultation rate and office consultation rate.The similarities between two types of practice may be a result of the interaction of group and independent practice in the same community.It is concluded that the team approach to medical care is not incompatible with independent practice.     

Domiciliary consultations: some facts and questions.

The domiciliary consultation scheme introduced at the start of the NHS enables joint consultation between a consultant and general practitioner in a patient''s home when the patient cannot attend hospital on medical grounds. Consultants claim a fee from the NHS, general practitioners do not. Data from the Department of Health and Social Security on domiciliary consultations in England and Wales during 1981-6 were analysed. The number of domiciliary consultations fell during 1981-6 from 429,759 in 1981 to 387,394 in 1986, a fall of 10%, whereas the numbers of consultants and general practitioners increased by 1404 (12%) and 2400 (10%), respectively. The yearly rate of domiciliary consultation per consultant fell by 19% from 36 in 1981 to 29 in 1986 and that per general practitioner by 18% from 18 to 15. In 1986 geriatric medicine had the highest rate of domiciliary consultation per consultant (187) followed by psychiatry (89), general medicine (52), dermatology (49), rheumatology (42), general surgery (36), gastroenterology (35), thoracic medicine (34), and orthopaedics (30). In 1986 all specialties apart from clinical pharmacology and therapeutics and clinical genetics showed a decrease in the yearly rate of domiciliary consultation when compared with the rate for 1981. Domiciliary consultation seems to have become a domiciliary visit by the consultant alone. At an estimated cost of about 20m pounds for 1988 the scheme needs critical evaluation.     

Cost effectiveness of treating primary care patients in accident and emergency: a comparison between general practitioners,senior house officers,and registrars.

OBJECTIVES--To compare outcome and costs of general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars treating patients who attended accident and emergency department with problems assessed at triage as being of primary care type. DESIGN--Prospective intervention study which was later costed. SETTING--Inner city accident and emergency department in south east London. SUBJECTS--4641 patients presenting with primary care problems: 1702 were seen by general practitioners, 2382 by senior house officers, and 557 by registrars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Satisfaction and outcome assessed in subsample of 565 patients 7-10 days after hospital attendance and aggregate costs of hospital care provided. RESULTS--Most patients expressed high levels of satisfaction with clinical assessment (430/562 (77%)), treatment (418/557 (75%)), and consulting doctor''s manner (434/492 (88%)). Patients'' reported outcome and use of general practice in 7-10 days after attendance were similar: 206/241 (85%), 224/263 (85%), and 52/59 (88%) of those seen by general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars respectively were fully recovered or improving (chi2 = 0.35, P = 0.840), while 48/240 (20%), 48/268 (18%), and 12/57 (21%) respectively consulted a general practitioner or practice nurse (chi2 = 0.51, P = 0.774). Excluding costs of admissions, the average costs per case were 19.30 pounds, 17.97 pounds, and 11.70 pounds for senior house officers, registrars, and general practitioners respectively. With cost of admissions included, these costs were 58.25 pounds, 44.68 pounds, and 32.30 pounds respectively. CONCLUSION--Management of patients with primary care needs in accident and emergency department by general practitioners reduced costs with no apparent detrimental effect on outcome. These results support new role for general practitioners.     

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.     

Lithium treatment: prescribing and monitoring habits in hospital and general practice.

OBJECTIVES--To define current clinical practice of lithium prescribing and monitoring and to compare hospital based practice with general practice. DESIGN--Prospective study of doctors'' practice. SETTING--Psychiatric hospital day and outpatient facilities and general practices in Edinburgh and Midlothian district (population 600,000). SUBJECTS--458 patients taking lithium who had been stabilised and who remained as outpatients during the year of study. 219 were treated by their general practitioner and 190 by the hospital; 49 had shared care or care transferred during the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Daily dose, duration of treatment, psychiatric diagnosis, mean annual serum lithium concentration, frequency of occurrence of and response to raised serum concentrations. RESULTS--Compared with hospital doctors general practitioners were more likely to prescribe lithium three or more times daily (43/219 (general practice) v 10/190 (hospital); chi 2 = 18.6, p = 0.001) and to estimate serum concentrations less frequently (4.5 v 5.3 measurements/year; t = 3.04, p = 0.003), and their patients were more likely to experience raised lithium concentrations (39/219 v 17/190; chi 2 = 6.8, p = 0.01). One third of doctors made no response to raised lithium concentrations in the next six weeks. CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners and hospital doctors care for similar types of patients and the stringency of lithium surveillance varies greatly among doctors. Certain aspects of practice give cause for concern and could be improved by following more uniform guidelines.     

Assessment of psychological care in general practice.

OBJECTIVE--To pilot a method of assessing psychological care by general practitioners. DESIGN--Prospective examination of psychological care given in general practice by using general health questionnaire with predetermined quantifiable and case specific indices of outcome established at the original consultation. SETTING--Rural general practice in Clwyd, North Wales. SUBJECTS--447 consecutive adult general practice attenders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Three month follow up consultation rates, one year retrospective consultation rates, continuity of care, changes in general health questionnaire scores at follow up, general satisfaction, and acceptability of outcome measures. RESULTS--The principal and trainee identified 72 patients with psychological problems, 46 of whom had new conditions. 133 patients scored over 6 on the 28 item general health questionnaire, 33 of whom were identified as new cases by the general practitioners. 62 patients were seen at follow up, including 23 patients identified by the questionnaire but not by the doctor. The doctors used diagnostic terms to describe the presenting condition in 38 cases. At three month follow up the general health questionnaire scores had fallen by more than 5 points in 22/39 patients identified and managed by doctors and 11/23 identified by the questionnaire. The agreed index of good outcome was almost or completely achieved by 20 of the 39 patients managed by doctors. CONCLUSION--Quantifiable methods of evaluating the quality of the structure, process, and outcome of psychological care can be achieved in general practice.     

Understanding variation in rates of referral among general practitioners: are inappropriate referrals important and would guidelines help to reduce rates?

OBJECTIVES--To determine the extent to which variation in rates of referral among general practitioners may be explained by inappropriate referrals and to estimate the effect of implementing referral guidelines. SETTING--Practices within Cambridge Health Authority and Addenbrooke''s Hospital, Cambridge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Data on practice referral rates from hospital computers, inappropriate referrals as judged by hospital consultants, and inappropriate referrals as judged against referral guidelines which had been developed locally between general practitioners and specialists. Effect of referral guidelines on referral patterns as judged by general practitioners using the guidelines in clinical practice. RESULTS--There was 2.5-fold variation in referral rates among general practices. According to the specialists, 9.6% (95% confidence interval 6.4% to 12.9%) of referrals by general practitioners and 8.9% (2.6% to 15.2%) of referrals from other specialists were judged possibly or definitely inappropriate. Against locally determined referral guidelines 15.9% of referrals by general practitioners were judged possibly inappropriate (11.8% to 20.0%). Elimination of all possibly inappropriate referrals could reduce variation in practice referral rates only from 2.5-fold to 2.1-fold. An estimate of the effect of using referral guidelines for 60 common conditions in routine general practice suggested that application of guidelines would have been unlikely to reduce rates of referral in hospital (95% confidence interval -4.5% to 8.6% of consultations resulting in referral). CONCLUSION--The variation in referral rates among general practitioners in Cambridge could not be explained by inappropriate referrals. Application of referral guidelines would be unlikely to reduce the number of patients referred to hospital.     

General practitioners' knowledge of their patients' psychosocial problems: multipractice questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate general practitioners'' knowledge of a range of psychosocial problems among their patients and to explore whether doctors'' recognition of psychosocial problems depends on previous general knowledge about the patient or the type of problem or on certain characteristics of the doctor or the patient. DESIGN: Multipractice survey of consecutive adult patients consulting general practitioners. Doctors and patients answered written questions. SETTING: Buskerud county, Norway. SUBJECTS: 1401 adults attending 89 general practitioners during one regular working day in March 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Doctors'' knowledge of nine predefined psychosocial problems in patients; these problems were assessed by the patients as affecting their health on the day of consultation; odds ratios for the doctor''s recognition of each problem, adjusted for characteristics of patients, doctors, and practices; and the doctor''s assessment of previous general knowledge about the patient. RESULTS: Doctors'' knowledge of the problems ranged from 53% (108/203) of "stressful working conditions" to 19% (12/63) of a history of "violence or threats." Good previous knowledge of the patient increased the odds for the doctor''s recognition of "sorrow," "violence or threats," "substance misuse in close friend or relative," and "difficult conflict with close friend or relative." Age and sex of doctor and patient, patient''s educational level and living situation, and location of practice influenced the doctor''s awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the patients'' communication abilities, the need for confidence in the doctor-patient relationship before revealing intimate problems, and a tendency for the doctors to be entrapped by their expectations may explain these findings.     

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.     

Use of thermometers in general practice.

OBJECTIVE--To identify the attitudes of general practitioners towards the use of thermometers in general practice. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--All general practitioners in the catchment area of Frimley Park Hospital, Surrey. SUBJECTS--145 general practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Answers to questions covering a variety of aspects concerning the use of thermometers in general practice. RESULTS--116 (80%) doctors replied. Seven doctors did not have any method of taking a patient''s temperature; up to 12 more doctors did not use their thermometers and 56 doctors used them infrequently, less than once a fortnight. Mercury glass thermometers were most commonly used (80 doctors; 69%), but only 8% of doctors used them correctly. Six doctors failed to clean their thermometers between patients. The study failed to identify the roles of axillary and rectal temperature readings. CONCLUSION--There is a wide variation in attitudes towards the use of thermometers in general practice.     

Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners

ObjectiveTo explore consultants'' and general practitioners'' perceptions of the factors that influence their decisions to introduce new drugs into their clinical practice.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews. Monitoring of hospital and general practice prescribing data for eight new drugs.SettingTeaching hospital and nearby general hospital plus general practices in Birmingham.Participants38 consultants and 56 general practitioners who regularly referred to the teaching hospital.ResultsConsultants usually prescribed new drugs only in their specialty, used few new drugs, and used scientific evidence to inform their decisions. General practitioners generally prescribed more new drugs and for a wider range of conditions, but their approach varied considerably both between general practitioners and between drugs for the same general practitioner. Drug company representatives were an important source of information for general practitioners. Prescribing data were consistent with statements made by respondents.ConclusionsThe factors influencing the introduction of new drugs, particularly in primary care, are more multiple and complex than suggested by early theories of drug innovation. Early experience of using a new drug seems to strongly influence future use.

What is already known on this topic

UK studies show that use of new drugs by general practitioners is influenced by consultants, the nature of the drug, and perceived risk

What this study adds

Consultants generally introduced fewer drugs than general practitioners, usually within their specialtyDecisions were said to be based mainly on the evidence from the scientific literature and meetingsGeneral practitioners prescribed more new drugs and the basis of decisions was more variedDoctors'' interpretations of using a new drug were not consistent     

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study

ObjectivesTo identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice.DesignQualitative study.Setting20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England.Participants20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients.Results14 categories of misunderstanding were identified relating to patient information unknown to the doctor, doctor information unknown to the patient, conflicting information, disagreement about attribution of side effects, failure of communication about doctor''s decision, and relationship factors. All the misunderstandings were associated with lack of patients'' participation in the consultation in terms of the voicing of expectations and preferences or the voicing of responses to doctors'' decisions and actions. They were all associated with potential or actual adverse outcomes such as non-adherence to treatment. Many were based on inaccurate guesses and assumptions. In particular doctors seemed unaware of the relevance of patients'' ideas about medicines for successful prescribing.ConclusionsPatients'' participation in the consultation and the adverse consequences of lack of participation are important. The authors are developing an educational intervention that builds on these findings.     

Patients' assessment of out of hours care in general practice

A sample of 177 patients drawn from 13 north London practices were interviewed shortly after they had sought help from their practice outside normal surgery hours. Patients were asked to describe the process and outcome of their out of hours call, to comment on specific aspects of the consultation, and to access their overall satisfaction with the encounter.Parents seeking consultations for children were least satisfied with the consultation; those aged over 60 responded most positively. Visits from general practitioners were more acceptable than visits from deputising doctors for patients aged under 60, but for patients aged over 60 visits from general practitioners and deputising doctors were equally acceptable.Monitoring of patients'' views of out of hours consultations is feasible, and the findings of this study suggest that practices should regularly review the organisation of their out of hours care and discuss strategies for minimising conflict in out of hours calls—particularly those concerning children.     

Promoting prevention in primary care: controlled trial of low technology,low cost approach.

A study is described in which three general practices were provided with low cost, low technology support from a "facilitator" and were compared with control practices in the ascertainment of major risk factors for cardiovascular disease in middle aged patients. Patients who were attending for a consultation with their general practitioners were recruited to make an appointment with a practice nurse for a health check, and this was compared with ordinary consultations in the control practices. Practices were helped by the facilitator to develop the nurse''s role. During the study the increase between intervention and control practices in blood pressure recording was doubled and in the recording of smoking habit it was quadrupled, and there was a fivefold increase in the recording of weight. This model can be applied to other aspects of prevention and general practice care.     

How can good general practitioner care be achieved?

It has been shown that to provide a high standard of care general practitioners probably need to book consultations at intervals of at least 10 minutes. In this study the maximum list size for which a general practitioner might be expected to provide a high standard of care was determined from calculations of the time spent consulting, based on various consultation rates and list sizes and assuming that consultations were 10 minutes long. If good quality care is to be provided and is to include the range of services suggested in the government''s recent green paper average list sizes should probably be no more than 1750, and lower in areas of high demand and high need. In addition to this, minimum standards could be determined for such measures as facilities available in surgeries, practice records, and accessibility of doctors to ensure that basic services were offered by all general practitioners.