Literature DB >> 11458477

A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings.

A Bowling1, M Bond.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Encouraged by the increased purchasing power of general practitioners (GPs), specialist-run clinics in general practice and community health care settings (known as specialist outreach clinics) have increased rapidly across England. The activities of local commissioning schemes within primary care groups are likely to accelerate this trend. AIM: To evaluate the costs, processes, and benefits of specialists' outreach clinics held in GPs' surgeries, compared with hospital outpatient clinics. DESIGN OF STUDY: A case-referent (comparative) study comparing the characteristics of outreach clinics (cases) with matched outpatient control clinics.
SETTING: Thirty-eight outreach clinics, compared with 38 matched outpatient clinics as controls, covering 14 hospital trust areas across England.
METHOD: Self-administered questionnaires were given to patients in both clinic settings. These covered processes, satisfaction, personal costs, and health status, with postal follow-up at six months to assess health outcomes. Self-administered questionnaires were also given to the specialists and GPs whose clinics were included in the study (individual patient clinical sheet and an attitude questionnaire), practice managers, and trust accountants (process and costs questionnaire). Evaluation of the costs, processes, and benefits of specialist outreach clinics versus hospital outpatient clinics was carried out by comparing questionnaire responses.
RESULTS: In comparison with outpatients, outreach clinic patients spent less time on the waiting lists for appointments to see the specialist, they had shorter waiting times in clinics, fewer follow-up appointments, and were more likely to be completely discharged after the sampled attendance. Outreach patients were more satisfied than outpatients with the range of clinic process items asked about. Most doctors felt that the outreach clinic was 'worthwhile'. While patients' personal costs were lower in outreach than in outpatients clinics, NHS costs were more expensive per patient in outreach. The benefits of outreach clinics on patients' health status at six months' follow-up were relatively small.
CONCLUSIONS: Outreach clinics are a means of improving access to specialist services for patients, in addition to improving the efficiency and quality of health care. Most results were similar across specialties and areas. The benefits of the outreach service need to be weighed against their substantially higher NHS costs, in comparison with outpatients clinics. Outreach clinics are unlikely to be financially justifiable for NHS funding given that the impact on patients' health status was small.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11458477      PMCID: PMC1313974     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  9 in total

1.  Evaluation of specialists' outreach clinics in general practice in England: process and acceptability to patients, specialists, and general practitioners.

Authors:  A Bowling; K Stramer; E Dickinson; J Windsor; M Bond
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  The efficiency of specialist outreach clinics in general practice: is further evaluation needed?

Authors:  T Gosden; M Black; N Mead; B Leese
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1997-07

3.  Investigation of benefits and costs of an ophthalmic outreach clinic in general practice.

Authors:  S J Gillam; M Ball; M Prasad; H Dunne; S Cohen; G Vafidis
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Evaluation of outreach clinics held by specialists in general practice in England.

Authors:  M Bond; A Bowling; A Abery; M McClay; E Dickinson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Specialist outreach clinics in general practice: what do they offer?

Authors:  M Black; B Leese; T Gosden; N Mead
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Discriminative power of the health status questionnaire 12 in relation to age, sex, and longstanding illness: findings from a survey of households in Great Britain.

Authors:  A Bowling; J Windsor
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  The Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI) for measurement of severity and comorbidity.

Authors:  G R Parkerson; W E Broadhead; C K Tse
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Specialist outreach clinics in general practice.

Authors:  J J Bailey; M E Black; D Wilkin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-04-23

9.  What things are important in people's lives? A survey of the public's judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life.

Authors:  A Bowling
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.634

  9 in total
  31 in total

1.  The future of primary care paediatrics and child health.

Authors:  E Peile
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  The future for child healthcare provision within general practice.

Authors:  D Sowden
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.791

3.  Learning from Kaiser (part 2). Is integration the answer?

Authors:  David Jewell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  William Pickles Lecture. Primary and specialty care interfaces: the imperative of disease continuity.

Authors:  Barbara Starfield
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  The role of UK general practitioners with special clinical interests: implications for policy and service delivery.

Authors:  Andrew Nocon; Brenda Leese
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Better services and more choice in the NHS.

Authors:  Paul Wallace; Ann Bowling; Jennifer A Roberts
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-07-08

7.  Randomised controlled trial to compare GP-run orthopaedic clinics based in hospital outpatient departments and general practices.

Authors:  Richard Baker; Jo Sanderson-Mann; Stephen Longworth; Rachel Cox; Clare Gillies
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Dismantling general practice.

Authors:  Roger Jones
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  The fairy godmother has spoken.

Authors:  David Jewell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Anthony W Russell; Maria Donald; Samantha J Borg; Jianzhen Zhang; Letitia H Burridge; Robert S Ware; Nelufa Begum; H David McIntyre; Claire L Jackson
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 10.122

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.