Inequality in provider continuity for children by Australian general practitioners

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is little published on provider continuity in Australian general practice and none on its effect on inequality of care for children.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Questionnaire administered to parents of the ACT Kindergarten Health Screen asking the name of their child's usual GP and practice address between 2001 and 2008.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Parents of 30,789 children named 433 GPs and 141 practices. In each year, an average of 77% of parents could name both the GP and the practice, an average of 11% of parents could name only the practice, and an average of 12% of parents could name neither. In each year, 25% of parents could not name a usual GP for children of Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander descent, or children born outside of Australia, compared to 10% of all other children (p = < 0.0001). The frequency of GPs displaying continuity of care varied over time with 19% of GPs being present in the ACT in only one year and 39% of GPs being present in every year over the eight years of study. GPs displayed two different forms of transience either by working in more than one practice in each year (5% of GPs), or by not being present in the ACT region from one year to the next (15% of GPs). Fewer parents nominated transient GPs as their child's GP compared to choosing GPs who displayed continuity (p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Many GPs (39%) were reported to provide continuity of care for in the ACT region and some GPs (20%) displayed transient care. Indigenous children or children born outside of Australia had less equity of access to a nominated GP than all other children. Such inequity might disappear if voluntary registration of children was adopted in Australian general practice.</p

Striking variations in consultation rates with general practice reveal family influence

BACKGROUND: The reasons why patients decide to consult a general practitioner vary enormously. While there may be individual reasons for this variation, the family context has a significant and unique influence upon the frequency of individuals' visits. The objective of this study was to explore which family factors can explain the differences between strikingly high, and correspondingly low, family consultation rates in families with children aged up to 21. METHODS: Data were used from the second Dutch national survey of general practice. This survey extracted from the medical records of 96 practices in the Netherlands, information on all consultations with patients during 2001. We defined, through multilevel analysis, two groups of families. These had respectively, predominantly high, and low, contact frequencies due to a significant family influence upon the frequency of the individual's first contacts. Binomial logistic regression analyses were used to analyse which of the family factors, related to shared circumstances and socialisation conditions, can explain the differences in consultation rates between the two groups of families. RESULTS: In almost 3% of all families, individual consultation rates decrease significantly due to family influence. In 11% of the families, individual consultation rates significantly increase due to family influence. While taking into account the health status of family members, family factors can explain family consultation rates. These factors include circumstances such as their economic status and number of children, as well as socialisation conditions such as specific health knowledge and family beliefs. The chance of significant low frequencies of contact due to family influences increases significantly with factors such as, paid employment of parents in the health care sector, low expectations of general practitioners' care for minor ailments and a western cultural background. CONCLUSION: Family circumstances can easily be identified and will add to the understanding of the health complaints of the individual patient in the consulting room. Family circumstances related to health risks often cannot be changed but they can illuminate the reasons for a visit, and mould strategies for prevention, treatment or recovery. Health beliefs, on the other hand, may be influenced by providing specific knowledge

Familiarity between patient and general practitioner does not influence the content of the consultation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Personal continuity in general practice is considered to be a prerequisite of high quality patient care based on shared knowledge and mutual understanding. Not much is known about how personal continuity is reflected in the content of GP – patient communication. We explored whether personal continuity of care influences the content of communication during the consultation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Personal continuity was defined as the degree of familiarity between GP and patient, rated by both the GP and the patient. 394 videotaped consultations between GPs and patients aged 18 years and older were analyzed. GP – patient communication was evaluated with an observation checklist, which rated the following topics of conversation: (1) medical issues, (2) psychological themes, and (3) the social environment of the patient. For each of these topics we coded whether or not it received attention, and was built upon prior knowledge. Data were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No relationship was found between GP – patient familiarity and the discussion of medical issues, psychological themes, or the social environment of the patient. But if the patient and the GP knew each other very well, the GP more often displayed prior knowledge with the topic in question. Few patient and GP characteristics were associated with differences in content of communication.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Given the relatively small sample size, we carefully conclude that familiarity between a GP and a patient does not influence the content of the communication (medical issues, psychological themes nor topics relating to the social environment). This is remarkable because we expected that familiarity would 'open up the communication' for more psychological and social themes. GPs seem to have the communication skills to put both familiar and non-familiar patients at ease enabling them to freely raise any issue they think necessary.</p