Continuity and locum use for acute consultations: observational study of subsequent workload.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-27 Print Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312
Harshita Kajaria-Montag, Stefan Scholtes, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Michael Freeman, Philip Evans
{"title":"Continuity and locum use for acute consultations: observational study of subsequent workload.","authors":"Harshita Kajaria-Montag, Stefan Scholtes, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Michael Freeman, Philip Evans","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Workload is probably the biggest challenge facing general practice and little is known about any modifiable factors. For GPs, both continuity and locum status are associated with differences in outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether practice and hospital workload after an index acute consultation depend on the type of GP consulted (locums and practice GPs with [regular] and without [non-regular] continuity, and locums).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>An observational, cross-sectional analysis of consultation-level data from English general practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2015 to 2017.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Antibiotic prescription was used as a marker for acute consultations with regression models to calculate adjusted relative risks for emergency department consultations and admissions, outpatient referrals, and test ordering, as well as the patients' GP reconsultation interval following consultations with the three types of GP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After adjustment, consultations with antibiotic prescriptions with regular GPs with continuity were associated with fewer subsequent hospital admissions and lower emergency department use but higher outpatient referrals relative to locums and non-regular GPs. Locums ordered tests less often (relative risk [RR] -24.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -27.3 to -21.2) than regular GPs whereas non-regular GPs ordered tests more often (RR 19.1%, 95% CI = = 16.4 to 21.8). Patients seeing their regular GP had on average a 9% longer (95% CI = 8 to 10) reconsultation interval than if they saw any other GP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The differences in outcomes were associated more with having continuity than with GP locum status. Seeing a GP with whom the patient had continuity of care was associated with reduced workload within the practice and in hospital.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e181-e186"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Workload is probably the biggest challenge facing general practice and little is known about any modifiable factors. For GPs, both continuity and locum status are associated with differences in outcomes.

Aim: To determine whether practice and hospital workload after an index acute consultation depend on the type of GP consulted (locums and practice GPs with [regular] and without [non-regular] continuity, and locums).

Design and setting: An observational, cross-sectional analysis of consultation-level data from English general practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2015 to 2017.

Method: Antibiotic prescription was used as a marker for acute consultations with regression models to calculate adjusted relative risks for emergency department consultations and admissions, outpatient referrals, and test ordering, as well as the patients' GP reconsultation interval following consultations with the three types of GP.

Results: After adjustment, consultations with antibiotic prescriptions with regular GPs with continuity were associated with fewer subsequent hospital admissions and lower emergency department use but higher outpatient referrals relative to locums and non-regular GPs. Locums ordered tests less often (relative risk [RR] -24.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -27.3 to -21.2) than regular GPs whereas non-regular GPs ordered tests more often (RR 19.1%, 95% CI = = 16.4 to 21.8). Patients seeing their regular GP had on average a 9% longer (95% CI = 8 to 10) reconsultation interval than if they saw any other GP.

Conclusion: The differences in outcomes were associated more with having continuity than with GP locum status. Seeing a GP with whom the patient had continuity of care was associated with reduced workload within the practice and in hospital.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性会诊的连续性和就地使用:后续工作量的观察性研究。
背景:工作量可能是全科医生面临的最大挑战,而我们对任何可改变的因素都知之甚少。对于全科医生来说,连续性和就地状态都与结果的差异有关。目的:确定急诊会诊后的实践和医院工作量是否取决于咨询的全科医生类型([定期]和[不定期]连续性的医生和执业全科医生,以及医生)。设计和背景:对临床实践研究数据链(Clinical Practice Research Datalink) 2015年至2017年英国全科医生咨询水平的数据进行观察性、横断面分析。方法:以抗生素处方作为急性会诊的标志,采用回归模型计算急诊科会诊和入院、门诊转诊和预约检查的调整相对风险,以及患者与三种类型的全科医生会诊后的全科医生再会诊间隔。结果:调整后,与常规全科医生进行抗生素处方咨询的连续性与较少的后续住院率和较低的急诊科使用率相关,但与常规全科医生和非常规全科医生相比,门诊转诊率较高。与常规全科医生相比,常规全科医生较少进行检查(相对风险[RR] -24.3%, 95%可信区间[CI] = -27.3至-21.2),而非常规全科医生更频繁地进行检查(RR 19.1%, 95% CI = = 16.4至21.8)。与看其他全科医生相比,看普通全科医生的患者再咨询间隔平均要长9% (95% CI = 8 - 10)。结论:结果的差异更多地与连续性有关,而不是与GP的位置有关。看到一个与病人有连续性护理的全科医生与减少在实践和医院的工作量有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Understanding measurement of postural hypotension: a nationwide survey of general practice in England. Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process. Patients' perceptions on reasons for self-referring to the emergency department shortly before a cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study. Anaemia, ethnicity, and cancer incidence: a retrospective cohort study in primary care. Patterns of diagnostic testing for oesophagogastric cancer-related symptoms in Australian primary care: a retrospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1