Kajaria-Montag Harshita, Scholtes Stefan, Gray Denis Pereira, Sidaway-Lee Kate, Freeman Michael, Evans Philip
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, US.
Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Br J Gen Pract. 2025 Feb 27;75(752):e181-e186. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2024.0312. Print 2025 Mar.
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.
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).
An observational, cross-sectional analysis of consultation-level data from English general practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2015 to 2017.
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.
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.
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.
工作量可能是全科医疗面临的最大挑战,而对于任何可改变的因素我们却知之甚少。对于全科医生而言,连续性和临时替班状态都与诊疗结果的差异相关。
确定在首次急性会诊后,诊所和医院的工作量是否取决于所咨询的全科医生类型(有[定期]和无[不定期]连续性的临时替班医生和诊所全科医生)。
对2015年至2017年来自英国全科诊所临床实践研究数据链的会诊层面数据进行观察性横断面分析。
将抗生素处方用作急性会诊的标志,通过回归模型计算急诊会诊和住院、门诊转诊、检查开单的调整后相对风险,以及患者在与三种类型的全科医生会诊后的全科医生再会诊间隔时间。
调整后,与有连续性的定期全科医生进行抗生素处方会诊后,相对于临时替班医生和不定期全科医生,后续住院人数减少,急诊就诊率降低,但门诊转诊率更高。临时替班医生开检查单的频率低于定期全科医生(相对风险[RR] -24.3%,95%置信区间[CI] = -27.3至-21.2),而不定期全科医生开检查单的频率更高(RR 19.1%,95% CI = 16.4至21.8)。看定期全科医生的患者的再会诊间隔时间平均比看其他任何全科医生时长9%(95% CI = 8至10)。
诊疗结果的差异更多与连续性有关,而非全科医生的临时替班状态。看有连续性医疗关系的全科医生与诊所和医院内工作量的减少相关。