Continuity and locum use for acute consultations: observational study of subsequent workload.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-27 Print Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312
Harshita Kajaria-Montag, Stefan Scholtes, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Michael Freeman, Philip Evans
{"title":"Continuity and locum use for acute consultations: observational study of subsequent workload.","authors":"Harshita Kajaria-Montag, Stefan Scholtes, Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Michael Freeman, Philip Evans","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Workload is probably the biggest challenge facing general practice and little is known about any modifiable factors. For GPs, both continuity and locum status are associated with differences in outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether practice and hospital workload after an index acute consultation depend on the type of GP consulted (locums and practice GPs with [regular] and without [non-regular] continuity, and locums).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>An observational, cross-sectional analysis of consultation-level data from English general practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2015 to 2017.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Antibiotic prescription was used as a marker for acute consultations with regression models to calculate adjusted relative risks for emergency department consultations and admissions, outpatient referrals, and test ordering, as well as the patients' GP reconsultation interval following consultations with the three types of GP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After adjustment, consultations with antibiotic prescriptions with regular GPs with continuity were associated with fewer subsequent hospital admissions and lower emergency department use but higher outpatient referrals relative to locums and non-regular GPs. Locums ordered tests less often (relative risk [RR] -24.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -27.3 to -21.2) than regular GPs whereas non-regular GPs ordered tests more often (RR 19.1%, 95% CI = = 16.4 to 21.8). Patients seeing their regular GP had on average a 9% longer (95% CI = 8 to 10) reconsultation interval than if they saw any other GP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The differences in outcomes were associated more with having continuity than with GP locum status. Seeing a GP with whom the patient had continuity of care was associated with reduced workload within the practice and in hospital.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e181-e186"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Workload is probably the biggest challenge facing general practice and little is known about any modifiable factors. For GPs, both continuity and locum status are associated with differences in outcomes.

Aim: To determine whether practice and hospital workload after an index acute consultation depend on the type of GP consulted (locums and practice GPs with [regular] and without [non-regular] continuity, and locums).

Design and setting: An observational, cross-sectional analysis of consultation-level data from English general practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2015 to 2017.

Method: Antibiotic prescription was used as a marker for acute consultations with regression models to calculate adjusted relative risks for emergency department consultations and admissions, outpatient referrals, and test ordering, as well as the patients' GP reconsultation interval following consultations with the three types of GP.

Results: After adjustment, consultations with antibiotic prescriptions with regular GPs with continuity were associated with fewer subsequent hospital admissions and lower emergency department use but higher outpatient referrals relative to locums and non-regular GPs. Locums ordered tests less often (relative risk [RR] -24.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -27.3 to -21.2) than regular GPs whereas non-regular GPs ordered tests more often (RR 19.1%, 95% CI = = 16.4 to 21.8). Patients seeing their regular GP had on average a 9% longer (95% CI = 8 to 10) reconsultation interval than if they saw any other GP.

Conclusion: The differences in outcomes were associated more with having continuity than with GP locum status. Seeing a GP with whom the patient had continuity of care was associated with reduced workload within the practice and in hospital.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信