Dataset Information

Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses.

Aim

To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records.

Design and setting

Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure.

Method

The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups was assessed.

Results

A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age.

Conclusion

The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.

SUBMITTER: Salisbury C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8049201 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesConsultation duration has previously been shown to be associated with patient, practitioner and practice characteristics. However, previous studies were conducted outside the UK, considered only small numbers of general practitioner (GP) consultations or focused primarily on practitioner-level characteristics. We aimed to determine the patient-level and practice-level factors associated with duration of GP and nurse consultations in UK primary care.Design and settingCross-sectional data were obtained from English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to data on patient deprivation and practice staffing, rurality and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) achievement.Participants218 304 patients, from 316 English general practices, consulting from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.AnalysisMultilevel mixed-effects models described the association between consultation duration and patient-level and practice-level factors (patient age, gender, smoking status, ethnic group, deprivation and practice rurality, number of full-time equivalent GPs/nurses, list size, consultation rate, quintile of overall QOF achievement and training status).ResultsMean duration of face-to-face GP consultations was 9.24 min and 5.32 min for telephone consultations. Nurse face-to-face and telephone consultations lasted 9.70 and 5.73 min on average, respectively. Longer GP consultation duration was associated with female patient gender, practice training status and older patient age. Shorter duration was associated with higher deprivation and consultation rate. Longer nurse consultation duration was associated with male patient gender, older patient age and ever smoking; and shorter duration with higher consultation rate. Observed differences in duration were small (eg, GP consultations with female patients compared with male patients were 8 s longer on average).ConclusionsSmall observed differences in consultation duration indicate that patients are treated similarly regardless of background. Increased consultation duration may be beneficial for older or comorbid patients, but the benefits and costs of increased consultation duration require further study.

Project description:The objectives of this study were to assess burnout in a sample of general practitioners (GPs), to determine factors associated with depersonalisation and to investigate its impact on doctors' consultations with patients.Cross-sectional, postal survey of GPs using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Patient survey and tape-recording of consultations for a subsample of respondents stratified by their MBI scores, gender and duration of General Medical Council registration.UK general practice.GPs within NHS Essex.Scores on MBI subscales (depersonalisation, emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment); scores on Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire and patient-centredness scores attributed to tape-recorded consultations by independent observers.In the postal survey, 564/789 (71%) GPs completed the MBI. High levels of emotional exhaustion (261/564 doctors, 46%) and depersonalisation (237 doctors, 42%) and low levels of personal accomplishment (190 doctors, 34%) were reported. Depersonalisation scores were related to characteristics of the doctor and the practice. Male doctors reported significantly higher (p<0.001) depersonalisation than female doctors. Doctors registered with the General Medical Council under 20 years had significantly higher (p=0.005) depersonalisation scores than those registered for longer. Doctors in group practices had significantly higher (p=0.001) depersonalisation scores than single-handed practitioners. Thirty-eight doctors agreed to complete the patient survey (n=1876 patients) and audio-record consultations (n=760 consultations). Depersonalised doctors were significantly more likely (p=0.03) to consult with patients who reported seeing their 'usual doctor'. There were no significant associations between doctors' depersonalisation and their patient-rated interpersonal skills or observed patient-centredness.This is the largest number of doctors completing the MBI with the highest levels of depersonalisation reported. Despite experiencing substantial depersonalisation, doctors' feelings of burnout were not detected by patients or independent observers. Such levels of burnout are, however, worrying and imply a need for action by doctors themselves, their medical colleagues, professional bodies, healthcare organisations and the Department of Health.

Project description:The use of information technology, including internet- and telephone-based resources, is becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone consultations provide a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilize a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telephone consultation as an alternative to face-to-face general practice visits.A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed using the search terms for the intervention (telephone consultation) and the comparator (general practice). Systematic reviews and randomized control trials that examined telephone consultation compared to normal face-to-face consultation in general practice were included in this review. Papers were reviewed, assessed for quality (Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool) and data extracted and analysed.Two systematic reviews and one RCT were identified and included in the analysis. The RCT (N?=?388) was of patients requesting same-day appointments from two general practices and patients were randomized to a same-day face-to-face appointment or a telephone call back consultation. There was a reduction in the time spent on consultations in the telephone group (1.5 min (0.6 to 2.4)) and patients in the telephone arm had 0.2 (0 to 0.3) more follow-up consultations than the face-to-face group. One systematic review focused on telephone consultation and triage on healthcare use, and included one RCT and one other observational study that examined telephone consultations. The other systematic review focused on patient access and included one RCT and four observational studies that examined telephone consultations. Both systematic reviews provided narrative interpretations of the evidence and concluded that telephone consultations provided an appropriate alternative to telephone consultations and reduced practice work load.There is a lack of high level evidence for telephone consultations in a GP setting; however, current evidence suggests that telephone consultations as an alternative to face-to-face general practice consultations offers an appropriate option in certain settings.PROSPERO CRD42015025225.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is a major cause of preventable disability and death globally and affects more than one in four adults in England. Unwarranted variation is variation in access, quality, outcome or value which is unexplained by differences in the condition or patient characteristics and which reduces quality and efficiency. Distinguishing unwarranted from variation due to clinical, organisational or patient factors can be challenging. We carried out this study to explore inter-practice variation in the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network database, a large, representative surveillance database.Methods and findingWe carried out a cross-sectional study using primary care data extracted from the electronic health records of 1,271,419 adults registered at RCGP RSC general practices on 31st December 2016. Logistic regression was used to indirectly standardise practice-level hypertension prevalence and control against the RCGP RSC population, adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, co-morbidity, NHS region and practice size. Inter-practice variation was demonstrated using funnel plots with 95% and 99.8% control limits. The prevalence of detected hypertension was 18.4% (95% CI 18.4-18.5), n = 234,165. Uncontrolled hypertension was present in 146,553 of 196,052 individuals, 25.2% (25.1-25.4), in whom blood pressure had been recorded in the previous year. Hypertension management varied markedly between practices with a three-fold difference in prevalence, 13.5-38.4%, and a four-fold difference in the proportion of uncontrolled hypertension, 11.8-47.9%. Despite adjustment for sociodemographic and practice characteristics funnel plots demonstrated marked over-dispersion.ConclusionsSubstantial variation in the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension and the management of hypertension was only partially explained by characteristics captured within a routine dataset. The over-dispersion suggests variation is not fully explained by these factors and that context, behaviour and processes of care delivery may contribute to variation. Routine data sources in isolation to not provide sufficient contextual data to diagnose the causes of variation.