Patient satisfaction with availability of general practice: an international comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To identify associations between the characteristics of general practitioners and practices, and patients' evaluations of the availability of general practice. DESIGN: Written surveys completed by patients. SETTING: General practice care in nine European countries: Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, UK, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), Switzerland, Slovenia and Spain. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 15996 adult patients consecutively visiting the general practitioner (response rates per country varied between 47 and 89%). MAIN MEASURES: The Europep instrument to assess patients' evaluations of five aspects of the availability of general practice care: (1) getting an appointment, (2) getting through on the phone, (3) being able to speak to the practitioner on the telephone, (4) waiting time in the waiting room, and (5) providing quick services for urgent health problems. Each general practitioner recorded age, sex, number of years in the practice, number of practitioners and other care providers in the practice, and urbanization level of the practice. RESULTS: Patients' more positive evaluations were associated with fewer general practitioners in the practice, except for quick services for urgent health problems (range of conditional overall odds ratios, 1.69-2.02). In addition, a number of significant unconditional overall odds ratios were found, particularly those related to the number of general practitioners' working hours and the number of care providers in the practice. None of the associations was found consistently in all countries. CONCLUSION: Patients favour small practices and full-time general practitioners, which contradicts developments in general practice in many countries. Policy makers should consider how the tensions between patients' views and organizational developments can be solved.     

A standardised instrument for patient evaluations of general practice care in Europe

Objective: International comparisons of health care systems may provide important insights, but they require internationally standardised and validated instruments. This paper describes the validity and reliability of the EUROPEP instrument for patient evaluation of general practice care. Methods: Surveys were performed in 16 countries among patients who visited the general practice (n=23892), using the 23-item EUROPEP questionnaire. Data were analysed with respect to content validity, reliability, criterion validity, construct validity and sensitivity of the instrument. Results: The item response among responders was good or acceptable for most items. Two internally consistent dimensions were identified, 'clinical behaviour' (17 items) and 'organisation of care' (6 items). The answers to the 23 questions predicted the overall attitudes regarding the general practitioner. Higher age, more visits to the GP and better health status predicted more positive evaluations of care, as was expected beforehand. Differences between countries were significant but moderate for most of the questions. In specific countries problems with respect to validity and reliability were found. Conclusions: An internationally standardised and validated instrument for patients' evaluations of general practice care is now available for international comparisons. Future research should improve its validity to solve the problems that were found in some countries. Eur J Gen Pract 2000;6:82–7.     

Patient participation groups in general practice in the National Health Service

General practice remains the organizational hub of first level health services in the United Kingdom. Patient participation groups are probably the most well known model for public participation in this setting and, although still not widespread, they have been a slowly expanding area of development for almost three decades. This paper sets out to critically asses patient participation groups in general practice by considering the context of their development and reviewing the research literature about groups. Critical issues needing more study and key methodological challenges are then discussed.
Patient participation groups have been a somewhat shifting and contested phenomenon, embracing trends and changing as policy priorities have changed over the years. There is some evidence to think that they might have potential as a local element within a public participation strategy in the National Health Service. However, the field studies are very limited and more research of a better quality is needed. The state of knowledge is not adequate to be able to say with any confidence if or how such groups should be developed. A better understanding is needed of the public's perspectives on this and other models of participation. There are many other questions to do with patient participation groups' purpose, equitable access, and effectiveness that need to be addressed. The methodological challenges include issues of how to involve all stakeholders in the research process; and how to study less tangible aspects of general practice organization, such as culture and power, that effect the public's participation.     

Data quality improvement in general practice

BACKGROUND: The importance of routine data generated by GPs has grown extensively in the last decade. These data have found many applications other than patient care. More attention has therefore been given to the issue of data quality. Several systematic reviews have detected ample space for improvement of data quality. A new review was conducted in order to find out which methods of improvement are effective. METHOD: The Medline database was searched using an iteratively composed set of terms and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) headings. Only papers that focused on explicit attempts at improving data quality of medical records in general practice were included. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. No study used patient-based comparison of records with external sources as the method to assess data quality improvement. Ten studies used internal indicators or markers of data quality instead. Attempts at data quality improvement often involve some sort of individualized feedback, and nearly all attempts seem to have some positive effect. Only one of the included studies fulfilled the basic methodological requirements of an intervention study. The most recent studies used a simple before-after design. CONCLUSION: No intervention to improve data quality has been put to a rigorous enough test. We still lack empirical knowledge as to how improvement can be brought about.     

Patient characteristics as predictors of primary health care preferences: a systematic literature analysis

Abstract

Objective

To identify associations between various cultural and demographic factors and patients’ primary health care preferences. Search strategy Searches were performed in MEDLINE (1966–December 2000), PsycINFO (1977–May 2001) and Sociological Abstracts (1963–December 2000). Identified papers were checked for more papers. Inclusion criteria Studies with a focus on primary health care or health care in general, asking patients about preferences with regard to health care, reporting quantitative results and examining the relations between specific patient characteristics and patient preferences. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted from studies using a scoring form to register what methods were used, which patient characteristics were analysed and which patient characteristics significantly influenced patients’ preferences with regard to different aspects of health care (P < 0.05). Main results A total of 145 studies were included with 2276 comparisons between subgroups of patients. Of all the comparisons, 607 (27%) showed a significant association between patient characteristics and preferences with regard to primary health care. Age and economic status significantly related to patient preferences in 38 and 33% of the comparisons, respectively. Education, health status, family situation, sex, and utilization of health care related significantly to patient preferences in less than 25% of the comparisons. Conclusions This review of the literature showed patient characteristics to be an important determinant of preferences regarding many aspects of primary health care defined as general practice care or health care, in general. All of the patient characteristics examined here showed at least some significant associations with preferences for primary health care.     

Communication in general practice: differences between European countries

BACKGROUND: Based on differences in national health care system characteristics such as the gatekeeping role of GPs (at the macrolevel) and on diverging GP and patient characteristics (at the microlevel), communication may differ between countries. Knowledge of the influence of these characteristics on doctor-patient communication will be important for setting European health care policies. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were (i) to compare doctor-patient communication in general practice between European countries; and (ii) to investigate the influence of the gatekeeping system and GP and patient characteristics on doctor-patient communication in general practice. METHODS: Fifteen patients per GP (in total 2825 patients) of 190 GPs in six European countries were included. Participating countries were The Netherlands, Spain, the UK (gatekeeping countries), Belgium, Germany and Switzerland (non-gatekeeping countries). Data were collected by means of patient and GP questionnaires and observation of videotaped consultations, and analysed by one-way and multilevel, multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Differences in communication between countries were found in: affective and instrumental behaviour; biomedical and psychosocial talk; GPs' patient-directed gaze; and consultation length. The study showed that GPs' gatekeeping role (with registered patients) was less important for doctor-patient communication than was expected. Patient characteristics such as gender, age, having psychosocial problems, and familiarity between the doctor and the patient were the most important in explaining differences in communication. CONCLUSION: The gatekeeping role of GPs is hardly important in explaining doctor-patient communication. The relationship is more complex than expected. Patient and GP characteristics are more important. Cultural factors should be included in future studies.     

Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner—Explaining variation between countries,practices and patients

BackgroundPatient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.ObjectiveTo explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.DesignWe constructed multi‐level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.Setting and ParticipantsA total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede''s national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.ResultsIn the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient‐level and only a few practice‐level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health‐care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.Discussion and ConclusionsThere are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients’ perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient‐reported measures as an indicator of health‐care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.     

Acute maxillary sinusitis in general practice: The relation between clinical picture and objective findings

Objective: The value of symptoms and clinical findings for the diagnosis of acute maxillary sinusitis in general practice is unclear. We investigated the relation between clinical picture and objective findings.

Methods: For 113 adult patients suspected by their general practitioner (GP) of having maxillary sinusitis, history and clinical examination data were related to roentgenograms, echograms and punctate results.

Results: History and examination data of the GPs showed a similar pattern for patients with and without positive punctate results. Even 22 patients with fluid and pathogenic bacteria in the sinus could not clearly be distinguished clinically. The probability of fluid in the sinus ranges from very low for X-ray results without demonstrable abnormalities, to about 60% in case of X-rays showing fluid levels.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that the group of patients suspected of having maxillary sinusitis cannot be further subdivided on the basis of history and examination. Since acute rhinitis and acute sinusitis appear to be manifestations of the same clinical entity, for these patients the diagnosis acute rhinosinusitis is preferable. The patients can be roughly classified on the basis of the X-ray as to the presence of fluid and pathogenic bacteria in the sinus. The question is now whether such diagnostic classification is relevant with a view to treatment.     

General practitioners' management of patients with mental health conditions: The views of general practitioners working in rural north‐western New South Wales

Objective: To identify the needs of the region's general practitioners concerning diagnosing, treating and referring patients with mental health disorders and major barriers to the general practitioners' management of these patients. Design: Cross‐sectional survey. Subjects: All general practitioners working in rural north‐western New South Wales. Measurements: Self‐assessed levels of confidence (5‐point Likert scale) in diagnosing and treating patients with a mental health condition. Practice data relating to presentation of such patients as well as issues affecting treatment and referral. Results: The three most commonly diagnosed and treated mental health conditions are depression, anxiety and dementia. General practitioners assessed themselves as being confident in diagnosing and treating these three mental health conditions and in diagnosing and treating adults and the elderly. The only form of treatment intervention that the general practitioners self‐assessed as being confident in relates to medication. Referrals to mental health specialists were due mostly to patients needing mental health counselling, the general practitioners seeking clarification of diagnosis as well as having insufficient skills to provide the best possible care. Barriers to being able to refer relate mainly to specialist services not being available and/or accessible as well as patients being reluctant to accept such a referral. Conclusion: Our results indicate that other than for depression, anxiety and dementia, efforts to improve the general practitioners' diagnostic and treatment skills and to diagnose and treat adolescents and children are warranted. Up‐skilling the general practitioners' ability to confidently use treatment options other than medication are worth considering.     

A policy of introducing a new contract and funding system of general practice in Estonia

The socialist bloc of post-war Europe was obliged to follow the Soviet example with a hierarchical, centrally controlled health care system based on polyclinics and other facilities providing extensive specialist services at the first level of contact. All the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have now expressed their wish to totally change their health care systems. Changes in these countries include: the introduction of market economy mechanisms in health care, an increased focus on population health needs in guiding health care systems, and the possibility of introducing a more general type of care at primary level. Patient expectations of access, choice and convenience are factors in shaping new models of health care delivery. Appropriate timing is the key determinant of the success of reforms. In Estonia the beginning of the 1990s was the time when several interest groups in society supported changes in the health care system. The first step after regaining independence was the reintroduction of a Bismarck-type insurance system. In the late 1990s the primary care reforms have changed the initial plans and elements of a National Health Service were introduced, especially general practitioners' lists, capitation payment and gate-keeping principles. The family medicine reform in Estonia has two main objectives: introduction of general practice as a specialty into Estonian health care and changing the remuneration system of primary care doctors. The specific tasks are: to provide practising primary care doctors with opportunities for retraining to gain the specialty status of a general practitioner, to create a list system for the population to register with a primary care doctor, to introduce a partial gate-keeping system and to give the status of the independent contractor to primary care doctors.     

Evaluation of welfare rights advice in primary care: the general practice perspective

Income maximisation may reduce enduring poverty-related health inequalities. Specialist welfare rights advice in primary care has been proposed and, in some areas, implemented, but evaluation data from the general practice perspective is needed. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact on general practice of specialist welfare rights advice, comparing practices with and without in-house provision of welfare advice using a cross-sectional postal questionnaire. This study was conducted in general practice surgeries in an inner-London health authority with high indicators of deprivation. Questionnaires were sent to practice managers. Comparative data (according to whether specialist advice was currently offered) addressed processes of identifying and meeting welfare needs and outcomes in terms of efficiency of provision. Seventy-nine surgeries participated. Those with welfare rights advisers (n = 42) were significantly more likely to report that current provision was adequate, that it was easier for staff to access advice on their patients' behalf (and by patients themselves) and that the process of advice provision ran smoothly. Lack of funding and space were the principal reasons for not having in-house advice. Surgeries wish provision to be expanded within practices. Welfare rights advice in surgeries improves ability to meet welfare needs via specialist advisers. Referral processes are simplified, enabling general practitioners to ensure that relevant advice is provided without the need for welfare knowledge themselves. General practices welcome the expansion of provision, with the proviso that adequate resources are identified. The current lack of basic information in surgeries must be addressed (e.g. information on local providers, printed information detailing range and eligibility criteria of welfare benefits).     

Factors affecting general practice collaboration with voluntary and community sector organisations

Collaborative working between general practice (GP) and voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations is increasingly championed as a means of primary care doing more with less and of addressing patients’ “wicked problems”. This paper aims to add to the knowledge base around collaborative practice between GPs and VCS organisations by examining the factors that aid or inhibit such collaboration. A case study design was used to examine the lived‐experience of GPs and VCS organisations working collaboratively. Four cases, each consisting of a GP and a VCS organisation with whom they work collaboratively, were identified. Interviews (n = 18) and a focus group (n = 1) were conducted with staff within each organisation. Transcribed data were analysed thematically. Whilet there are similarities across cases in their use of, for example, Health Trainers and social prescribing, the form and function of GP‐VCS collaborations were unique to their local context. The identified factors affecting GP‐VCS collaboration reflect those found in previous service evaluations and the broader literature on partnership working; shared understanding, time and resources, trust, strong leadership, operational systems and governance and the “negotiation” of professional boundaries. While the current political environment may represent an opportunity for collaborations to develop, there are issues yet to be resolved before collaboration—especially more holistic and integrated approaches—becomes systematically embedded into practice.     

Practice features associated with patient-reported accessibility, continuity, and coordination of primary health care

PURPOSE On the eve of major primary health care reforms, we conducted a multilevel survey of primary health care clinics to identify attributes of clinic organization and physician practice that predict accessibility, continuity, and coordination of care as experienced by patients.METHODS Primary health care clinics were selected by stratified random sampling in urban, suburban, rural, and remote locations in Quebec, Canada. Up to 4 family or general physicians were selected in each clinic, and 20 patients seeing each physician used the Primary Care Assessment Tool to report on first-contact accessibility (being able to obtain care promptly for sudden illness), relational continuity (having an ongoing relationship with a physician who knew their particulars), and coordination continuity (having coordination between their physician and specialists). Physicians reported on aspects of their practice, and secretaries and directors reported on organizational features of the clinic. We used hierarchical regression modeling on the subsample of regular patients at the clinic.RESULTS One hundred clinics participated (61% response rate), for a total of 221 physicians and 2,725 regular patients (87% response and completion rate). First-contact accessibility was most problematic. Such accessibility was better in clinics with 10 or fewer physicians, a nurse, telephone access 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, operational agreements to facilitate care with other health care establishments, and evening walk-in services. Operational agreements and evening care also positively affected relational continuity. Physicians who valued continuity and felt attached to the community fostered better relational continuity, whereas an accessibility-oriented style (as indicated by a high proportion of walk-in care and high patient volume) hindered it. Coordination continuity was also associated with more operational agreements and continuous telephone access, and was better when physicians practiced part time in hospitals and performed a larger range of medical procedures in their office.CONCLUSIONS The way a clinic is organized allows physicians to achieve both accessibility and continuity rather than one or the other. Features that achieve both are offering care in the evenings and access to telephone advice, and having operational agreements with other health care establishments.     

Treatment of lateral epicondylitis in general practice

Mechanical low back pain creates a significant economic burden in the industrial world. The costs of treating mechanical back pain in terms of sickness absenteeism and compensation claims are increasing rapidly.^1-3 There is robust evidence that staying active and continuing or resuming ordinary activities is more effective than rest in the management of mechanical back pain.⁴ This evidence in the international literature has been incorporated in a set of Clinical Guidelines produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP).⁵ These guidelines recommend that early investigation and referral to a specialist for simple mechanical back pain are unwarranted in most cases. Positive advice to stay active and continue ordinary activities is emphasised. The RCGP guidelines recommend the use of educational material for patients in the form of The Back Book, to reinforce positive messages.⁶ This book has been shown to be clinically effective in a randomised, controlled trial.⁷ A comparative study from Australia⁸ showed that a public education campaign based on The Back Book had a positive effect on GP management of mechanical back pain and related morbidity.     

Chronically ill Australians' satisfaction with accessibility and patient-centredness

Objective. To evaluate the association of characteristics of patients andgeneral practices with patient assessment of quality of care. Design. Cross-sectional multi-practice study using the general practiceassessment survey. Settings. General practices in Australia. Participants. Ninety-six general practices and 7505 chronic illness patientsaged 18 years. Main outcome measures. Access of care and patient-centredness. Results. Two factors were identified in factor analysis: ‘Accessof care’ and ‘Patient-centredness’. Multilevelregression analysis showed significant associations betweenpatients' assessments and patient and practice characteristics.Patients from smaller practices (one to three general practitioners)reported better access to care compared with larger practices.Patients from urban areas were more satisfied with patient-centrednessthan those from rural areas. Self-reported health status andage had a positive and home ownership, employment and education,and patients from non-English-speaking countries a negativerelationship with both scores. Females were more satisfied withpatient-centredness. Conclusions. Patient assessments of quality of care and patient-centrednesswere strongly associated with practice and patient characteristics.This has important implications for interpreting assessmentsof the quality of primary care, and for policy and practicemeasures designed to improve this.