TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors associated with consultation rates in general practice in England, 2013-2014
T2 - a cross-sectional study
AU - Mukhtar, Toqir K.
AU - Bankhead, Clare
AU - Stevens, Sarah
AU - Perera, Rafael
AU - Holt, Tim A.
AU - Salisbury, Chris
AU - Hobbs, F. D.Richard
N1 - © British Journal of General Practice 2018.
PY - 2018/5
Y1 - 2018/5
N2 - Background: Workload in general practice has risen during the last decade, but the factors associated with this increase are unclear. Aim: To examine factors associated with consultation rates in general practice. Design and setting: A cross-sectional study examining a sample of 304 937 patients registered at 316 English practices between 2013 and 2014, drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Method: Age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and deprivation measures were linked with practice-level data on staffing, rurality, training practice status, and Quality and Outcomes Framework performance. Multilevel analyses of patient consultation rates were conducted. Results: Consultations were grouped into three types: all (GP or nurse), GP, and nurse. Non-smokers consulted less than current smokers (all: rate ratio [RR] = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.89; GP: RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.89; nurse: RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.92). Consultation rates were higher for those in the most deprived quintile compared with the least deprived quintile (all: RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.19; GP: RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.19; nurse: RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.15). For all three consultation types, consultation rates increased with age and female sex, and varied by ethnicity. Rates in practices with >8 and ≤19 full-time equivalent (FTE) GPs were higher compared with those with ≤2 FTE GPs (all: RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.49; GP: RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.56). Conclusion: The analyses show consistent trends in factors related to consultation rates in general practice across three types of consultation. These data can be used to inform the development of more sophisticated staffing models, and resource allocation formulae.
AB - Background: Workload in general practice has risen during the last decade, but the factors associated with this increase are unclear. Aim: To examine factors associated with consultation rates in general practice. Design and setting: A cross-sectional study examining a sample of 304 937 patients registered at 316 English practices between 2013 and 2014, drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Method: Age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and deprivation measures were linked with practice-level data on staffing, rurality, training practice status, and Quality and Outcomes Framework performance. Multilevel analyses of patient consultation rates were conducted. Results: Consultations were grouped into three types: all (GP or nurse), GP, and nurse. Non-smokers consulted less than current smokers (all: rate ratio [RR] = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.89; GP: RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.89; nurse: RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.92). Consultation rates were higher for those in the most deprived quintile compared with the least deprived quintile (all: RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.19; GP: RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.19; nurse: RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.15). For all three consultation types, consultation rates increased with age and female sex, and varied by ethnicity. Rates in practices with >8 and ≤19 full-time equivalent (FTE) GPs were higher compared with those with ≤2 FTE GPs (all: RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.49; GP: RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.56). Conclusion: The analyses show consistent trends in factors related to consultation rates in general practice across three types of consultation. These data can be used to inform the development of more sophisticated staffing models, and resource allocation formulae.
KW - Consultation rates
KW - General practice
KW - Health services
KW - Workload
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045963463&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3399/bjgp18X695981
DO - 10.3399/bjgp18X695981
M3 - Article (Academic Journal)
C2 - 29686130
SN - 0960-1643
VL - 68
SP - e370-e377
JO - British Journal of General Practice
JF - British Journal of General Practice
IS - 670
ER -