Dataset Information

Workload in Norwegian general practice 2018 - an observational study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Rising workload in general practice has been a recent cause for concern in several countries; this is also the case in Norway. Long working hours and heavy workload seem to affect recruitment and retention of regular general practitioners (RGPs). We investigated Norwegian RGPs' workload in terms of time used on patient-related office work, administrative work, municipality tasks and other professional activities in relation to RGPs, and gender, age, employment status and size of municipality. METHODS:In early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4716 RGPs in Norway. In addition to demographic background, the RGP reported minutes per day used on various tasks in the RGP practice prospectively during 1 week. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional work and on out-of-hours primary health care. Differences were analysed by chi square test, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA. RESULTS:Among 1876 RGPs (39.8%), the mean total working hours per week was 55.6, while the mean for regular number of working hours was 49.0 h weekly. Men worked 1.5 h more than women (49.7 vs. 48.2 h, p = 0.010). Self-employed RGPs work more than salaried RGPs (49.3 vs. 42.5 h, p < 0.001), and RGPs age 55-64 years worked more than RGPs at age 30-39 (51.1 vs. 47.3 h, p < 0.001). 54.1% of the regular working hours was used on face-to-face patient work. CONCLUSIONS:Norwegian RGPs have long working hours compared to recommended regular working hours in Norway, with small gender differences. Only half of the working time is used on face-to-face consultations. There seems to be a trend of increasing workload among Norwegian GPs, at the cost of direct patient contact. Further research should address identifying factors that can reduce long working hours.

SUBMITTER: Morken T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6599272 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Workload in Norwegian general practice 2018 - an observational study.

Morken Tone T Rebnord Ingrid Keilegavlen IK Maartmann-Moe Kjell K Hunskaar Steinar S

BMC health services research 20190628 1

<h4>Background</h4>Rising workload in general practice has been a recent cause for concern in several countries; this is also the case in Norway. Long working hours and heavy workload seem to affect recruitment and retention of regular general practitioners (RGPs). We investigated Norwegian RGPs' workload in terms of time used on patient-related office work, administrative work, municipality tasks and other professional activities in relation to RGPs, and gender, age, employment status and size ...[more]

PMID: 31253160

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Repeated studies of working hours among Norwegian regular general practitioners (RGPs) have shown that the average total number of weekly working hours has remained unchanged since 1994 and up until 2014. For both male and female RGPs, the mean total weekly working hours amounted to almost 50?h in 2014. In recent years, Norwegian RGPs have become increasingly dissatisfied. They experience significantly increased workload without compensation in the form of more doctors or better payment. A study from the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2018 (the RGP study) showed that Norwegian RGPs worked 55.6?h weekly (median 52.5). 25% of the respondents worked more than 62.2?h weekly. Based on data from the RGP study we investigated Norwegian RGP’s out-of-hours (OOH) work, how the working time was distributed, and to what extent the OOH work affected the regular working hours. Methods In early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4640 RGPs in Norway. Each RGP reported how many minutes that were spent that particular day on various tasks during seven consecutive days. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional medical work and OOH primary health care. Differences were analysed by independent t-tests, and regression analyses. Results One thousand eighty hundred seventy-six RGPs (40.4%) responded, 640 (34.1%) had registered OOH work. Male RGPs worked on average 1.5?h more doing regular work than did females (p =?0.001) and on average 2.3?h more OOH work than females (p =?0.079). RGPs with no OOH work registered a mean of 1.0?h more clinical work than RGPs working OOH (p =?0.043). There was a large variation in OOH working hours. A linear regression analysis showed that male RGPs and RGPs in rural areas had the heaviest OOH workload. Conclusions One in three Norwegian RGPs undertook OOH work during the registration week in the RGP study. OOH work was done in addition to a sizeable regular workload as an RGP. We found small gender differences. OOH work was not compensated with reduced regular RGP work.

Project description:BackgroundHealth services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors' workload.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload.MethodsA process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs.ResultsDigital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question.ConclusionsDigital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.

Project description:Objective: The participation of general practice (GP) residents in COVID-19 prevention and control tasks touched workload participation in public health and disease prevention and control and was also a rare, valuable training experience for the residents and research material for medical education. This experience contributed to the understanding of three key points: First, was the content of the COVID-19 prevention task suited to them, or did it overload them in the present? Second, their competence in the COVID-19 prevention task reflected whether the early medical school training was sufficient or not. Third, what can be drawn from this study to promote public health training in the future? This study aimed to explore these issues by conducting a real epidemic situated training (REST) program. Methods: A situated cognition study was designed that included situational context design, legitimate peripheral participation, and the construction of a community of practice. The Task Cognitive Load Scale (NASA-TLX Scale) and self-developed questionnaires were adopted to conduct a questionnaire survey of resident doctors in a GP training program from West China Hospital of Sichuan University, and 183 questionnaires were collected. SPSS 23.0 statistical software was used for the statistical analysis of data. Results: The NASA scale showed that the intensity of field epidemic prevention and control (training) was tolerable. In particular, there was statistical difference in the cognitive load intensity of training before and after the epidemic occurred at different time points (P < 0.05). This shows that they were early trained and well-prepared before sudden outbreak of the COVID-19. Before the outbreak of the epidemic, the public health knowledge and training received came from undergraduate education (83.16%), early residents program training (69.47%), online self-study (49.16%), and continuing education (20.53%). Conclusion: Former medical school education and training at the regulatory training stage have a good effect and enable residents to master the skills required for epidemic prevention and control and to physically and mentally prepare for the task. After this stage, epidemic prevention and control training in real situations will make important contributions to the self-assessment and performance improvement of public health training.

Project description:Objective To evaluate a "telephone first" approach, in which all patients wanting to see a general practitioner (GP) are asked to speak to a GP on the phone before being given an appointment for a face to face consultation.Design Time series and cross sectional analysis of routine healthcare data, data from national surveys, and primary survey data.Participants 147 general practices adopting the telephone first approach compared with a 10% random sample of other practices in England.Intervention Management support for workload planning and introduction of the telephone first approach provided by two commercial companies.Main outcome measures Number of consultations, total time consulting (59 telephone first practices, no controls). Patient experience (GP Patient Survey, telephone first practices plus controls). Use and costs of secondary care (hospital episode statistics, telephone first practices plus controls). The main analysis was intention to treat, with sensitivity analyses restricted to practices thought to be closely following the companies' protocols.Results After the introduction of the telephone first approach, face to face consultations decreased considerably (adjusted change within practices -38%, 95% confidence interval -45% to -29%; P<0.001). An average practice experienced a 12-fold increase in telephone consultations (1204%, 633% to 2290%; P<0.001). The average duration of both telephone and face to face consultations decreased, but there was an overall increase of 8% in the mean time spent consulting by GPs, albeit with large uncertainty on this estimate (95% confidence interval -1% to 17%; P=0.088). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload and others a large increase. Compared with other English practices in the national GP Patient Survey, in practices using the telephone first approach there was a large (20.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 18.2 to 21.9; P<0.001) improvement in length of time to be seen. In contrast, other scores on the GP Patient Survey were slightly more negative. Introduction of the telephone first approach was followed by a small (2.0%) increase in hospital admissions (95% confidence interval 1% to 3%; P=0.006), no initial change in emergency department attendance, but a small (2% per year) decrease in the subsequent rate of rise of emergency department attendance (1% to 3%; P=0.005). There was a small net increase in secondary care costs.Conclusions The telephone first approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with over the phone. The approach does not suit all patients or practices and is not a panacea for meeting demand. There was no evidence to support claims that the approach would, on average, save costs or reduce use of secondary care.

Dataset Information

Workload in Norwegian general practice 2018 - an observational study.

Publications

Workload in Norwegian general practice 2018 - an observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets