Dataset Information

Which factors decided general practitioners' choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Parts of New Public Management-reforms of the public sector depend on introduction of market-like mechanisms to manage the sector, like free choice of hospital. However, patients may delegate the choice of hospital to agents like general practitioners (GPs). We have investigated which factors Danish GPs reported as decisive for their choice of hospital on behalf of patients, and their utilisation of formal and informal data sources when they chose a hospital on behalf of patients. METHODS: Retrospective questionnaire study of all of the 474 GPs practising in three counties which constituted a single uptake area. Patients were free to choose a hospital in another county in the country. The GPs were asked about responsibility for choice of the latest three patients referred by the GP to hospital; which of 16 factors influenced the choice of hospital; which of 15 sources of information about clinical quality at various hospitals/departments were considered relevant, and how often were six sources of information about waiting time utilised. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent (240 GPs) filled in and returned the questionnaire. One hundred and eighty-three GPs (76%) reported that they perceived that they chose the hospital on behalf of the latest referred patient. Short distance to hospital was the most common reason for choice of hospital.The most frequently used source of information about quality at hospital departments was anecdotal reports from patients referred previously, and the most important source of information about waiting time was the hospitals' letters of confirmation of referrals. CONCLUSIONS: In an area with free choice of public hospital most GPs perceived that they chose the hospital on behalf of patients. Short distance to hospital was the factor which most often decided the GPs' choice of hospital on behalf of patients. GPs attached little weight to official information on quality and service (waiting time) at hospitals or departments, focusing instead on informal sources like feedback from patients and colleagues and their experience with cooperation with the department or hospital.

SUBMITTER: Birk HO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3407516 | biostudies-other | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Which factors decided general practitioners' choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study.

Birk Hans O HO Henriksen Lars O LO

BMC health services research 20120525

<h4>Background</h4>Parts of New Public Management-reforms of the public sector depend on introduction of market-like mechanisms to manage the sector, like free choice of hospital. However, patients may delegate the choice of hospital to agents like general practitioners (GPs). We have investigated which factors Danish GPs reported as decisive for their choice of hospital on behalf of patients, and their utilisation of formal and informal data sources when they chose a hospital on behalf of patie ...[more]

PMID: 22630354

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNut consumption at the population level remains low despite the well-documented benefits of their consumption, including their cardioprotective effects. Studies have suggested that advice from health professionals may be a means to increase nut consumption levels. Understanding how nuts are perceived by the public and health professionals, along with understanding the public's perceptions of motivators of and deterrents to consuming nuts, may inform the development of initiatives to improve on these low levels of consumption. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare perceptions of nuts among three groups of health professionals (dietitians, general practioners, and practice nurses) and the general public in New Zealand (NZ), along with motivators of and deterrents to consuming nuts amongst the general public and their experiences of receiving advice around nut consumption.MethodsThe NZ electoral roll was used to identify dietitians, general practitioners (GPs), and practice nurses, based on their free-text occupation descriptions, who were then invited to complete a questionnaire with 318, 292, and 149 respondents respectively. 1,600 members of the general public were randomly selected from the roll with 710 respondents. Analyses were performed using chi-squared tests to look at differences in categorical variables and linear regression for differences in other variables between the four survey groups.ResultsAlthough there were significant differences between the four groups regarding the perceptions of nuts, in general there was agreement that nuts are healthy, high in protein and fat, are filling, and some nuts are high in selenium. We noted frequent agreement that the general public participants would consume more if nuts: improved health (67%), were more affordable (60%), or improved the nutrient content (59%) and balance of fats (58%) within their diets. Over half the respondents reported they would eat more nuts if they were advised to do so by a dietitian or doctor, despite less than 4% reporting they had received such advice. The most frequently selected deterrents to increasing nut consumption were: cost (67%), potential weight gain (66%), and leading to eating too much fat (63%).DiscussionIt is concerning that so few among the general public report receiving advice to consume more nuts from health professionals, especially given their apparent responsiveness to such advice. Health professionals could exploit the motivators of nut consumption, while also addressing the deterrents, to promote nut intake. These factors should also be addressed in public health messages to encourage regular nut consumption among the public. Educational initiatives could also be used to improve the nutritional knowledge of GPs and practice nurses with regard to nuts, although even dietitians were unsure of their knowledge in some cases.

Project description:BackgroundProviding care for mental health problems concerns General Practitioners (GPs), Private Psychiatrists (PrPs) and Public Psychiatrists (PuPs). As patient distribution and patterns of practice among these professionals are not well known, a survey was planned prior to a re-organisation of mental health services in an area close to ParisMethodsAll GPs (n = 492), PrPs (n = 82) and PuPs (n = 78) in the South-Yvelines area in France were informed of the implementation of a local mental health program. Practitioners interested in taking part were invited to include prospectively all patients with mental health problem they saw over an 8-day period and to complete a 6-month retrospective questionnaire on their mental health practice. 180 GPs (36.6%), 45 PrPs (54.9%) and 63 PuPs (84.0%) responded.ResultsGPs and PrPs were very similar but very different from PuPs for the proportion of patients with anxious or depressive disorders (70% v. 65% v. 38%, p < .001), psychotic disorders (5% v. 7% v. 30%, p < .001), previous psychiatric hospitalization (22% v. 26 v. 61%, p < .001) and receiving disability allowance (16% v. 18% v. 52%, p < .001). GPs had fewer patients with long-standing psychiatric disorders than PrPs and PuPs (52%, 64% v. 63%, p < .001). Time-lapse between consultations was longest for GPs, intermediate for PuPs and shortest for PrPs (36 days v. 26 v. 18, p < .001). Access to care had been delayed longer for Psychiatrists (PrPs, PuPs) than for GPs (61% v. 53% v. 25%, p < .001). GPs and PuPs frequently felt a need for collaboration for their patients, PrPs rarely (42% v. 61%. v. 10%, p < .001). Satisfaction with mental health practice was low for all categories of physicians (42.6% encountered difficulties hospitalizing patients and 61.4% had patients they would prefer not to cater for). GPs more often reported unsatisfactory relationships with mental health professionals than did PrPs and PuPs (54% v. 15% v. 8%, p < .001).ConclusionGP patients with mental health problems are very similar to patients of private psychiatrists; there is a lack of the collaboration felt to be necessary, because of psychiatrists' workload, and because GPs have specific needs in this respect. The "Yvelines-Sud Mental Health Network" has been created to enhance collaboration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia. Guidelines suggest that patients with suspected lung cancer on thoracic imaging be referred for urgent specialist review. However, the term "suspected" is broad and includes the common finding of lung nodules, which often require periodic surveillance rather than urgent invasive investigation. The British Thoracic Society recommends that a lung nodule with a PanCan risk > 10% be considered for invasive investigation. This study aimed to assess which factors influence general practitioners (GPs) to request urgent review for a lung nodule and if these factors concur with PanCan risk prediction model variables. METHODS:A discrete choice experiment was developed that produced 32 individual case vignettes. Each vignette contained eight variables, four of which form the parsimonious PanCan risk prediction model. Two additional vignettes were created that addressed haemoptysis with a normal chest computed tomography (CT) scan and isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The survey was distributed to 4160 randomly selected Australian GPs and they were asked if the patients in the vignettes required urgent (less than two weeks) specialist review. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with request for urgent review. RESULTS:Completed surveys were received from 3.7% of participants, providing 152 surveys (1216 case vignettes) for analysis. The factors associated with request for urgent review were nodule spiculation (adj-OR 5.57, 95% CI 3.88-7.99, p < 0.0001), larger nodule size, presentation with haemoptysis (adj-OR 4.79, 95% CI 3.05-7.52, p < 0.0001) or weight loss (adj-OR 4.87, 95% CI 3.13-7.59, p < 0.0001), recommendation for urgent review by the reporting radiologist (adj-OR 4.68, 95% CI 2.86-7.65, p < 0.0001) and female GP gender (adj-OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.36-2.56, p 0.0001). In low risk lung nodules (PanCan risk < 10%), there was significant variability in perceived sense of urgency. Most GPs (83%) felt that a patient with haemoptysis and a normal chest CT scan did not require urgent specialist review but that a patient with isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy did (75%). CONCLUSION:Future lung cancer investigation pathways may benefit from the addition of a risk prediction model to reduce variations in referral behavior for low risk lung nodules.

Dataset Information

Which factors decided general practitioners' choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study.

Publications

Which factors decided general practitioners' choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets