PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2556546

Practice activity analysis: collaboration between general practitioners and a family practitioner committee.

L Peter·J B Tate·P J Catchpole
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Brent and Harrow family practitioner committee has supported a scheme to enable general practitioners to collect data relating to their practice activity. This paper reports on the operation of the scheme involving 76 general practitioners from 22 practices and the findings. Practice nurse activity was also included. The family practitioner committee undertook an analysis of the data and provided each participating general practitioner with a print-out of his or her consultation rates over a range of activity, enabling general practitioners to make comparisons both with their partners and with the averages for all the practices participating in the scheme. The essential aim is to provide structured information which enables general practitioners to look more objectively at their activity. The family practitioner committee gave an assurance that the figures would not be used to criticize individuals.

Explore related subjects

EnglandFamily PracticeHumansNursesPractice Patterns, Physicians'Referral and ConsultationTime FactorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Peter, J B Tate, P J Catchpole. 1989. Practice activity analysis: collaboration between general practitioners and a family practitioner committee.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2556546/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗