PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “General Practice”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 811 records · Page 45Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

'Practice professional development plans': general practitioners' perspectives on proposed changes in general practice education.

BACKGROUND: The Chief Medical Officer has presented a report proposing a change in general practitioners' education towards a 'Practice Professional Development Plan', which, in principle, is based around formal needs assessment, practice-based learning in areas identified by those involved, and with the potential for multi-professional learning. This aims to replace the present system of a financial allowance earned by attending a certain amount of educational activity. AIM: To study the opinions of a group of general practitioners attending a course that included workshops that introduced and considered this educational initiative. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews four weeks after the course. RESULTS: Educational benefits were clearly seen, while issues such as funding and time will present difficulties in implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This proposal was seen as an improvement to the existing postgraduate educational allowance system. To maintain enthusiasm, successful introduction will depend on the issues of support and resources.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Specialist treatment versus self-help for bulimia nervosa: a randomised controlled trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about general practice management of patients with eating disorders. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of a general practice-based, self-help approach to the treatment of bulimia nervosa with that of specialist outpatient treatment. DESIGN OF STUDY: A prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practices and specialist eating disorder clinics in London. METHOD: Patients were recruited from general practitioner (GP) referrals to specialist eating disorder clinics. Thirty-four patients were randomised to receive the self-help intervention in general practice and thirty-four were randomised to the clinic intervention. Patients randomised to the self-help arm of the trial worked through a manual based on cognitive behaviour principles, while keeping in contact with their GPs. Those randomised to receive specialist treatment were managed in the specialist clinic to which they had been referred. The main outcome measure was the Bulimic Investigatory Test Edinburgh score, assessed at baseline and at six and nine months. Secondary measures were eating pathology, depression, and social adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 74% and 80% of patients were followed up at six and nine months respectively. An intention-to-treat analysis revealed that, while bulimic symptoms declined in both groups over time, there was no significant difference in outcome between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The findings lend support to the idea that patients with bulimia nervosa can be treated in general practice and that this approach warrants further investigation.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Age, sex and practice variations in the use of statins in general practice in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Statins are highly effective in reducing the risk of sudden cardiac death and other acute coronary events in patients with pre-existing ischaemic heart disease or with raised blood cholesterol levels. However, relatively little is known about how statins are used in primary care. The objectives of this study were to investigate age, sex and inter-practice variations in the prescribing of statins. METHODS: This was an observational study of statin prescribing rates in 288 general practices in England and Wales that contributed data to the General Practice Research Database in 1996. RESULTS: In 1996, 0.7 per cent of men and 0.5 per cent of women received a prescription for a statin. In the subgroup of patients with a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease, 13.3 per cent of men and 8.2 per cent of women received a prescription for a statin in 1996. Below the age of 65 years, men with ischaemic heart disease were more likely to be prescribed a statin than were women. Patients aged 75 years and over with ischaemic heart disease were unlikely to be prescribed a statin irrespective of their sex. The percentage of patients prescribed statins in individual practices varied from 0.1 to 2.3 per cent in men and from 0 to 2.3 per cent in women. The recorded prevalence of ischaemic heart disease explained only 12 per cent of this variation in men and 7 per cent in women. CONCLUSIONS: There are large age, sex and inter-practice variations in the use of statins in primary care, which are poorly explained by measures of health need. Developing and implementing clinical guidelines to accompany the introduction of new drugs for the management of common chronic disorders should be seen as a priority for GPs, primary care groups and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of patients' and general practitioners' evaluations of general practice care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patients' and general practitioners' (GPs') evaluations of the quality of general practice care. DESIGN: Written surveys among patients and GPs. SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 1772 patients (from 45 GPs) and a random sample of 315 GPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' and GPs' evaluations of 23 aspects of general practice care and GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations using a 5 point scale. RESULTS: The response rate was 88% in the patient sample and 63% in the GP sample. The patients' ratings of care were significantly more positive (mean 4.0) than those of the GPs (mean 3.7) as well as GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations (mean 3.5) (p<0.001). The overall rank order correlations between the patients' evaluations, GPs' evaluations, and GPs' perceptions of the patients' evaluations were 0.75 or higher (p<0.001). Patients and practitioners gave the most positive evaluations of specific aspects of the doctor-patient relationship ("keeping patients' records and data confidential", "listening to patients", and "making patients feel they had enough time during consultations") and aspects of the organisation of care ("provide quick service for urgent health problems" and "helpfulness of the staff (other than the doctor)"). The aspects of care evaluated least positively by patients as well as by GPs were other organisational aspects ("preparing patients for what to expect from specialist or hospital care" and "getting through to practice on the telephone"). CONCLUSIONS: GPs and patients have to some extent a shared perspective on general practice care. However, GPs were more critical about the quality of care than patients and they underestimated how positive patients were about the care they provide. Furthermore, specific aspects of care were evaluated differently, so surveys and other consultations with patients are necessary to integrate their perspective into quality improvement activities.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: General practice is currently experiencing a large number of developments. Studies of patient satisfaction are required to guide the changes that many general practitioners are introducing. AIM: A study set out to examine the characteristics of general practices that influence patient satisfaction. METHOD: In 1991-92, a surgery satisfaction questionnaire of demonstrated reliability and validity was administered to 220 patients in each of 89 general practices. A further questionnaire completed by a member of practice staff collected information about practice characteristics including total list size, number, age and sex of practice partners, training status, fundholding status, presence of a practice manager and whether there was a personal list system. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were undertaken to identify those practice characteristics that influenced patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The mean of the response rates of patients completing questionnaires in each practice was 82%. An increasing total list size of patients registered with practices was associated with decreasing levels of general satisfaction and decreased satisfaction with accessibility, availability, continuity of care, medical care and premises. The presence of a personal list system was associated with increased levels of general satisfaction and increased satisfaction with accessibility, availability, continuity of care and medical care. Training practices were associated with decreased levels of general satisfaction and decreased satisfaction with availability and continuity of care. CONCLUSION: The patients of practices in this study preferred smaller practices, non-training practices and practices that had personal list systems. Practice organization should be reviewed in order to ensure that the trend towards larger practices that provide a wider range of services does not lead to a decline in patient satisfaction. General practitioners should have personal list systems and consider the creation of several personal teams within the practice consisting of small numbers of doctors, receptionists and practice nurses.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the views of general practice registrars about involving patients in decisions and to assess the feasibility of using the shared decision making model by means of simulated general practice consultations. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on focus group interviews. SETTING: General practice vocational training schemes in south Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 39 general practice registrars and eight course organisers (acting as observers) attended four sessions; three simulated patients attended each time. METHOD: After an introduction to the principles and suggested stages of shared decision making the registrars conducted and observed a series of consultations about choices of treatment with simulated patients using verbal, numerical, and graphical data formats. Reactions were elicited by using focus group interviews after each consultation and content analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Registrars in general practice report not being trained in the skills required to involve patients in clinical decisions. They had a wide range of opinions about "involving patients in decisions," ranging from protective paternalism ("doctor knows best"), through enlightened self interest (lightening the load), to the potential rewards of a more egalitarian relationship with patients. The work points to three contextual precursors for the process: the availability of reliable information, appropriate timing of the decision making process, and the readiness of patients to accept an active role in their own management. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing decisions entails sharing the uncertainties about the outcomes of medical processes and involves exposing the fact that data are often unavailable or not known; this can cause anxiety to both patient and clinician. Movement towards further patient involvement will depend on both the skills and the attitudes of professionals, and this work shows the steps that need to be taken if further progress is to be made in this direction.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗