Dataset Information

Rates of turnover among general practitioners: a retrospective study of all English general practices between 2007 and 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To quantify general practitioners' (GPs') turnover in England between 2007 and 2019, describe trends over time, regional differences and associations with social deprivation or other practice characteristics.

Design

A retrospective study of annual cross-sectional data.

Setting

All general practices in England (8085 in 2007, 6598 in 2019).

Methods

We calculated turnover rates, defined as the proportion of GPs leaving a practice. Rates and their median, 25th and 75th percentiles were calculated by year and region. The proportion of practices with persistent high turnover (>10%) over consecutive years were also calculated. A negative binomial regression model assessed the association between turnover and social deprivation or other practice characteristics.

Results

Turnover rates increased over time. The 75th percentile in 2009 was 11%, but increased to 14% in 2019. The highest turnover rate was observed in 2013-2014, corresponding to the 75th percentile of 18.2%. Over time, regions experienced increases in turnover rates, although it varied across English regions. The proportion of practices with high (10% to 40%) turnover within a year almost doubled from 14% in 2009 to 27% in 2019. A rise in the number of practices with persistent high turnover (>10%) for at least three consecutive years was also observed, from 2.7% (2.3%-3.1%) in 2007 to 6.3% (5.7%-6.9%) in 2017. The statistical analyses revealed that practice-area deprivation was moderately associated with turnover rate, with practices in the most deprived area having higher turnover rates compared with practices in the least deprived areas (incidence rate ratios 1.09; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13).

Conclusions

GP turnover has increased in the last decade nationally, with regional variability. Greater attention to GP turnover is needed, in the most deprived areas in particular, where GPs often need to deal with more complex health needs. There is a large cost associated with GP turnover and practices with very high persistent turnover need to be further researched, and the causes behind this identified, to allow support strategies and policies to be developed.

SUBMITTER: Parisi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8362689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePreterm birth is a leading cause of preventable neonatal morbidity and mortality. Preterm birth rates at the national level may mask important geographic variation in rates and trends at the county level.ObjectiveTo estimate age-standardized preterm birth rates by US county from 2007 to 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis serial cross-sectional study used data from the National Center for Health Statistics composed of all live births in the US between 2007 and 2019. Data analyses were performed between March 22, 2022, and September 29, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresAge-standardized preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation) and secondarily early preterm birth (<34 weeks' gestation) rates by county and year calculated with a validated small area estimation model (hierarchical bayesian spatiotemporal model) and percent change in preterm birth rates using log-linear regression models.ResultsBetween 2007 and 2019, there were 51 044 482 live births in 2383 counties. In 2007, the national age-standardized preterm birth rate was 12.6 (95% CI, 12.6-12.7) per 100 live births. Preterm birth rates varied significantly among counties, with an absolute difference between the 90th and 10th percentile counties of 6.4 (95% CI, 6.2-6.7). The gap between the highest and lowest counties for preterm births was 20.7 per 100 live births in 2007. Several counties in the Southeast consistently had the highest preterm birth rates compared with counties in California and New England, which had the lowest preterm birth rates. Although there was no statistically significant change in preterm birth rates between 2007 and 2019 at the national level (percent change, -5.0%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 0.9%), increases occurred in 15.4% (95% CI, 14.1%-16.9%) of counties. The absolute and relative geographic inequalities were similar across all maternal age groups. Higher quartile of the Social Vulnerability Index was associated with higher preterm birth rates (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 risk ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.31-1.36), which persisted across the study period. Similar patterns were observed for early preterm birth rates.Conclusions and relevanceIn this serial cross-sectional study of county-level preterm and early preterm birth rates, substantial geographic disparities were observed, which were associated with place-based social disadvantage. Stability in aggregated rates of preterm birth at the national level masked increases in nearly 1 in 6 counties between 2007 and 2019.

Project description:BackgroundGeneral Practitioners (GPs) report high levels of burnout, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention. The complexity of presenting problems to general practice makes diagnostic uncertainty a common occurrence that has been linked to burnout. The interrelationship between diagnostic uncertainty with other factors such as burnout, job satisfaction and turnover intention have not been previously examined.ObjectivesTo examine associations between diagnostic uncertainty, emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), job satisfaction, and turnover intention in GPs.MethodsSeventy general practices in England were randomly selected through the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC). A total of 348 GPs within 67 these practices completed a 10-item online questionnaire which included questions on GP characteristics, work-life balance, job satisfaction, sickness presenteeism, diagnostic uncertainty, turnover intention as well as EE and DP. Associations between diagnostic uncertainty and each of EE, DP, job satisfaction, and turnover intention were evaluated in multivariate mixed-effect ordinal logistic regressions whilst adjusting for covariates, to account for the correlation in the three outcomes of interest.ResultsAlmost one-third of GPs (n = 101; 29%) reported experiencing >10% of diagnostic uncertainty in their day-to-day practice over the past year. GPs reporting greater diagnostic uncertainty had higher levels of EE [OR = 3.90; 95% CI = (2.54, 5.99)], job dissatisfaction [OR = 2.01; 95% CI = (1.30, 3.13)] and turnover intention [OR = 4.51; 95% CI = (2.86, 7.11)]. GPs with no sickness presenteeism had lower levels of EE [OR = 0.53; 95% CI = (0.35, 0.82)], job dissatisfaction [OR = 0.56; 95% CI = (0.35, 0.88)], and turnover intention [OR = 0.61; 95% CI = (0.41, 0.91)].ConclusionDiagnostic uncertainty may not only negatively impact on the wellbeing of GPs, but could also have adverse implications on workforce retention in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity is common among general practice patients and increases a general practitioner's (GP's) workload. But the extent of multimorbidity may depend on its definition and whether a time delimiter is included in the definition or not.AimsThe aims of the study were (1) to compare practice prevalence rates yielded by different models of multimorbidity, (2) to determine how a time delimiter influences the prevalence rates and (3) to assess the effects of multimorbidity on the number of direct and indirect patient contacts as an indicator of doctors' workload.MethodsThis retrospective observational study used electronic medical records from 142 German general practices, covering 13 years from 1994 to 2007. The four models of multimorbidity ranged from a simple definition, requiring only two diseases, to an advanced definition requiring at least three chronic conditions. We also included a time delimiter for the definition of multimorbidity. Descriptive statistics, such as means and correlation coefficients, were applied.FindingsThe annual percentage of multimorbid primary care patients ranged between 84% (simple model) and 16% (advanced model) and between 74% and 13% if a time delimiter was included. Multimorbid patients had about twice as many contacts annually than the remainder. The number of contacts were different for each model, but the ratio remained similar. The number of contacts correlated moderately with patient age (r = 0.35). The correlation between age and multimorbidity increased from model to model up to 0.28 while the correlations between contacts and multimorbidity varied around 0.2 in all four models.ConclusionMultimorbidity seems to be less prevalent in primary care practices than usually estimated if advanced definitions of multimorbidity and a temporal delimiter are applied. Although multimorbidity increases in any model a doctor's workload, it is especially the older person with multiple chronic diseases who is a challenge for the GP.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2015 NICE guidelines for suspected cancer recommend that English General Practitioners have direct access to diagnostic tests to investigate symptoms of cancer that do not meet the criteria for urgent referral. We aimed to identify the proportion of GPs in England with direct access to these tests.MethodsWe recruited 533 English GPs through a national clinical research network to complete an online survey about direct access to laboratory, radiology, and endoscopy tests in the three months leading up to the release of the 2015 NICE guidance. If they had direct access to a diagnostic test, GPs were asked about the time necessary to arrange a test and receive a report. Results are reported by NHS sub-region and, adjusting for sampling, for England as a whole.ResultsAlmost all GPs reported direct access to x-ray and laboratory investigations except faecal occult blood testing (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) and urine protein electrophoresis (89%, 95% CI 84-92%). Fewer GPs had direct access to CT scans (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) or endoscopy (colonoscopy 32%, 95% CI 28-37%; gastroscopy 72%, 95% CI 67-77%). There was significant variation in direct access between NHS regions for the majority of imaging tests-for example, from 20 to 85% to MRI. Apart from x-ray, very few GPs (1-22%) could access radiology and endoscopy within the timescales recommended by NICE. The modal request to test time was 2-4 weeks for routine radiology and 4-6 weeks for routine endoscopy with results taking another 1-2 weeks.ConclusionAt the time that the 2015 NICE guideline was released, local investment was required to not only provide direct access but also reduce the interval between request and test and speed up reporting. Further research using our data as a benchmark is now required to identify whether local improvements in direct access have been achieved in response to the NICE targets. If alternative approaches to test access are to be proposed they must be piloted comprehensively and underpinned by robust effectiveness data.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").MethodsIn March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.ResultsOf 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.ConclusionsThis study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.