R Stacy1, L Robinson, R Bhopal, J Spencer. 1. Department of Primary Health Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) do not routinely receive information about the deaths of those patients whose death certificates they have not completed. We developed and evaluated a system for producing death registers for GPs. AIM: To evaluate GPs' and practice managers' views on, and uses of, the death register. METHOD: General practitioners in Newcastle (n = 161) and Sunderland Family Health Service Authority (n = 144) areas were sent a questionnaire on their sources and use of information about patients' deaths. Death registers were sent to Newcastle practices; Sunderland practices were the control group. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to Newcastle (n = 173) and Sunderland (n = 140) GPs after two years. Newcastle practice managers (n = 45) were interviewed after their practice had received death registers for one year. RESULTS: Ninety-two per cent of Newcastle responders had seen the death register. Seventy-three per cent saw it regularly. Of those who saw it, 92% found it useful for communication within the primary health care team, bereavement follow-up, and administration and medical audit. One fifth of GPs named the death register as their first source of information about their patients' deaths. Newcastle GPs reported greater levels of change in use of patient death information than the control group. Practice managers circulated, used, and recorded information from the death register. CONCLUSION: Death registers are valued and have demonstrable benefits with regard to administration, bereavement care, and medical audit.
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) do not routinely receive information about the deaths of those patients whose death certificates they have not completed. We developed and evaluated a system for producing death registers for GPs. AIM: To evaluate GPs' and practice managers' views on, and uses of, the death register. METHOD: General practitioners in Newcastle (n = 161) and Sunderland Family Health Service Authority (n = 144) areas were sent a questionnaire on their sources and use of information about patients' deaths. Death registers were sent to Newcastle practices; Sunderland practices were the control group. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to Newcastle (n = 173) and Sunderland (n = 140) GPs after two years. Newcastle practice managers (n = 45) were interviewed after their practice had received death registers for one year. RESULTS: Ninety-two per cent of Newcastle responders had seen the death register. Seventy-three per cent saw it regularly. Of those who saw it, 92% found it useful for communication within the primary health care team, bereavement follow-up, and administration and medical audit. One fifth of GPs named the death register as their first source of information about their patients' deaths. Newcastle GPs reported greater levels of change in use of patient death information than the control group. Practice managers circulated, used, and recorded information from the death register. CONCLUSION: Death registers are valued and have demonstrable benefits with regard to administration, bereavement care, and medical audit.
Authors: Mark J Yaffe; Geeta Gupta; Susan Still; Miriam Boillat; Balbina Russillo; Benjamin Schiff; Donald Sproule Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Richard Baker; Emma Sullivan; Janette Camosso-Stefinovic; Aly Rashid; Azhar Farooqi; Hanna Blackledge; Justin Allen Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2007-04