Journal article icon

Journal article

Factors associated with consultation rates in general practice in England, 2013-14

Abstract:

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. A sample of 304,937 patients registered at 316 English practices between 2013 and 2014 was drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Method

We linked age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and deprivation measures with practice level data on staffing, rurality, training practice status, and Quality and Outcomes Framework performance. We conducted multilevel analyses of patient consultation rates.

Results

Consultations were grouped into three types: General practitioner or nurse (All), general practitioner (GP), and nurse. Non-smokers consulted less than current smokers (All: RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.89; GP: 0.88 [0.87 to 0.89]; nurse: 0.91 [0.90 to 0.92]. Consultation rates were higher for those in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile (All: 1.18 [1.16 to 1.19]; GP: 1.17 [1.15 to 1.19]; nurse: 1.13 [1.11 to 1.15]. For all three consultation types, consultation rates increased with age, female sex, and varied by ethnicity. Rates in practices with between >8 and <=19 full time equivalent (FTE) GPs were higher compared to those with <=2 FTE GPs (All: 1.26 [1.06 to 1.49]; GP: 1.36 [1.19 to 1.56]).

Conclusions

Our analyses show consistent trends in factors related to consultation rates in general practice across three types of consultation. These data can be used inform the development of more sophisticated staffing models, and resource allocation formulae.

Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Publisher copy:
10.3399/bjgp18X695981

Authors

More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Medical Sciences Division
Department:
Primary Care; Primary Care Health Sciences
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Medical Sciences Division
Department:
Primary Care; Primary Care Health Sciences
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Primary Care Health Sciences
Oxford college:
Green Templeton College
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-1094-8455
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Medical Sciences Division
Department:
Primary Care; Primary Care Health Sciences
Role:
Author
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Medical Sciences Division
Department:
Primary Care; Primary Care Health Sciences
Role:
Author


Publisher:
Royal College of General Practitioners
Journal:
British Journal of General Practice More from this journal
Volume:
68
Issue:
670
Pages:
e370-e377
Publication date:
2018-04-26
Acceptance date:
2017-12-05
DOI:
EISSN:
1478-5242
ISSN:
0960-1643


Keywords:
Pubs id:
pubs:820979
UUID:
uuid:d3b48a36-d5bf-4850-b347-040e89a387ee
Local pid:
pubs:820979
Source identifiers:
820979
Deposit date:
2018-01-22
ARK identifier:

Terms of use


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP