McLean Gary, Guthrie Bruce, Mercer Stewart W, Watt Graham C M
General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Quality Safety and Informatics Research Group, Population Health Sciences Division, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee.
Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Dec;65(641):e799-805. doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X687829.
Universal access to health care, as provided in the NHS, does not ensure that patients' needs are met.
To explore the relationships between multimorbidity, general practice funding, and workload by deprivation in a national healthcare system.
Cross-sectional study using routine data from 956 general practices in Scotland.
Estimated numbers of patients with multimorbidity, estimated numbers of consultations per 1000 patients, and payments to practices per patient are presented and analysed by deprivation decile at practice level.
Levels of multimorbidity rose with practice deprivation. Practices in the most deprived decile had 38% more patients with multimorbidity compared with the least deprived (222.8 per 1000 patients versus 161.1; P<0.001) and over 120% more patients with combined mental-physical multimorbidity (113.0 per 1000 patients versus 51.5; P<0.001). Practices in the most deprived decile had 20% more consultations per annum compared with the least deprived (4616 versus 3846, P<0.001). There was no association between total practice funding and deprivation (Spearman ρ -0.09; P = 0.03). Although consultation rates increased with deprivation, the social gradients in multimorbidity were much steeper. There was no association between consultation rates and levels of funding.
No evidence was found that general practice funding matches clinical need, as estimated by different definitions of multimorbidity. Consultation rates provide only a partial estimate of the work involved in addressing clinical needs and are poorly related to the prevalence of multimorbidity. In these circumstances, general practice is unlikely to mitigate health inequalities and may increase them.
英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)所提供的全民医疗保健服务并不能确保满足患者的需求。
在一个国家医疗体系中,探讨多重疾病、全科医疗资金以及按贫困程度划分的工作量之间的关系。
采用来自苏格兰956家全科诊所的常规数据进行横断面研究。
呈现并分析了按诊所层面的贫困十分位数划分的多重疾病患者估计数、每1000名患者的咨询估计数以及每位患者向诊所的付费情况。
多重疾病的水平随诊所贫困程度的增加而上升。最贫困十分位数组的诊所与最不贫困组相比,患有多重疾病的患者多38%(每1000名患者中分别为222.8例和161.1例;P<0.001),患有精神 - 身体合并多重疾病的患者多120%以上(每1000名患者中分别为113.0例和51.5例;P<0.001)。最贫困十分位数组的诊所每年的咨询量比最不贫困组多20%(分别为4616次和3846次,P<0.001)。诊所的总资金与贫困程度之间没有关联(斯皮尔曼ρ系数为 -0.09;P = 0.03)。尽管咨询率随贫困程度增加,但多重疾病的社会梯度更为陡峭。咨询率与资金水平之间没有关联。
未发现证据表明全科医疗资金与根据多重疾病的不同定义所估计的临床需求相匹配。咨询率仅能部分估计满足临床需求所涉及的工作量,且与多重疾病的患病率关系不大。在这种情况下,全科医疗不太可能减轻健康不平等,反而可能加剧这种不平等。