Postmortem examinations: general practitioners' knowledge, behaviour, and attitudes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to R Wagstaff.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Although general practitioners are involved in the care of most dying patients, they do not routinely receive information about their deceased patients for whom they did not complete the death certificate, and often they rely upon informal communication channels. AIM: This study set out to assess how general practitioners obtained, recorded and used information about deceased patients and to determine their views on receiving a death register. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to all 305 general practitioners in the Newcastle upon Tyne and Sunderland Family Health Services Authority areas. RESULTS: A total of 225 questionnaires were returned (response rate 74%). General practitioners usually first learnt about their patients' deaths from hospital discharge summaries (54%) and patients' relatives (46%) and less commonly from newspaper obituary columns (20%) and hospital telephone calls (9%). Two thirds of respondents recorded information about decreased patients, mainly listing personal details and the immediate cause of death. One third or fewer of those recording information listed contributory causes. The information was used mainly for following up bereaved relatives and notifying hospitals and other agencies. CONCLUSION: Current informal systems for handling information about patients' deaths are inadequate. General practitioners need and would welcome prompt, accurate and comprehensive information about all their deceased patients.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of skin surgery in general practice on the workload of a pathology laboratory and to identify what further training might be helpful. DESIGN: Analysis of skin biopsy specimens from general practitioners before and after their new contract to determine numbers of specimens, changes in diagnoses, adequacy of treatment of malignant tumours, and areas of low diagnostic accuracy. SETTING: District general hospital. SUBJECTS: All 1017 skin biopsy specimens from general practice for 15 months before and 12 months after the new general practitioner contract. RESULTS: The number of pathology specimens received increased from 16 to 65 per month (median = 6 submitted by each general practitioner in the post-contract year). The proportion of the more common pathological diagnoses was unchanged between the two periods, but the proportion of correctly diagnosed naevi, cysts, and seborrhoeic keratoses increased in the second. Although few diagnoses were overtly incorrect, accurate diagnosis of dermatofibromas and malignancies decreased after the contract, and the overall correct diagnosis rate for seborrhoeic keratoses, dermatofibromas, rashes, and malignancies was below 30%. Only nine out of 21 squamous cell carcinomas were adequately excised with tumour free margins, and follow up of malignant tumours may have been inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Skin surgery in general practice has advantages but matters of concern are the increase in laboratory workload, the excision of some benign lesions, and the inappropriateness of biopsy of rashes. Squamous cell carcinoma and other malignant tumours submitted for pathological examination were often unsuspected and inadequately excised, and heightened suspicion is recommended. Pathology request forms may need redesigning to encourage provision of clinical details.