BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders to GP clinics can place an unnecessary burden on primary care. Interventions to reduce frequent attendance have had mixed results. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a GP intervention to reduce frequent-attender consultations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial with frequent attenders divided into an intervention group and two control groups (one control group was seen by GPs also providing care to patients undergoing the intervention). SETTING:A health centre in southern Spain. METHOD:Six GPs and 209 randomly-selected frequent attenders participated. Three GPs were randomly allocated to perform the new intervention: of the 137 frequent attenders registered with these three GPs, 66 were randomly allocated to receive the intervention (IG) and 71 to a usual care control group (CG2). The other three GPs offered usual care to the other 72 frequent attenders (CG1). The main outcome measure was the total number of consultations 1 year post-intervention. Baseline measurements were recorded of sociodemographic characteristics, provider-user interface, chronic illnesses, and psychosocial variables. GPs allocated to the new intervention received 15 hours' training which incorporated biopsychosocial, organisational, and relational approaches. After 1 year of follow-up frequent attenders were contacted. An intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: A multilevel model was built with three factors: time, patient, and doctor. After adjusting for covariates, the mean number of visits at 1 year in IG was 13.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]=11.39 to 14.94); in the CG1 group was 19.37 (95% CI=17.31 to 21.55); and in the CG2 group this was 16.72 (95% CI=4.84 to 18.72). CONCLUSION: The new intervention with GPs resulted in a significant and relevant reduction in frequent-attender consultations. Although further trials are needed, this intervention is recommended to GPs interested in reducing consultations by their frequent attenders.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders to GP clinics can place an unnecessary burden on primary care. Interventions to reduce frequent attendance have had mixed results. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a GP intervention to reduce frequent-attender consultations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial with frequent attenders divided into an intervention group and two control groups (one control group was seen by GPs also providing care to patients undergoing the intervention). SETTING: A health centre in southern Spain. METHOD: Six GPs and 209 randomly-selected frequent attenders participated. Three GPs were randomly allocated to perform the new intervention: of the 137 frequent attenders registered with these three GPs, 66 were randomly allocated to receive the intervention (IG) and 71 to a usual care control group (CG2). The other three GPs offered usual care to the other 72 frequent attenders (CG1). The main outcome measure was the total number of consultations 1 year post-intervention. Baseline measurements were recorded of sociodemographic characteristics, provider-user interface, chronic illnesses, and psychosocial variables. GPs allocated to the new intervention received 15 hours' training which incorporated biopsychosocial, organisational, and relational approaches. After 1 year of follow-up frequent attenders were contacted. An intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: A multilevel model was built with three factors: time, patient, and doctor. After adjusting for covariates, the mean number of visits at 1 year in IG was 13.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]=11.39 to 14.94); in the CG1 group was 19.37 (95% CI=17.31 to 21.55); and in the CG2 group this was 16.72 (95% CI=4.84 to 18.72). CONCLUSION: The new intervention with GPs resulted in a significant and relevant reduction in frequent-attender consultations. Although further trials are needed, this intervention is recommended to GPs interested in reducing consultations by their frequent attenders.
Authors: D J Katzelnick; G E Simon; S D Pearson; W G Manning; C P Helstad; H J Henk; S M Cole; E H Lin; L H Taylor; K A Kobak Journal: Arch Fam Med Date: 2000-04
Authors: Jean Bourbeau; Marcel Julien; François Maltais; Michel Rouleau; Alain Beaupré; Raymond Bégin; Paolo Renzi; Diane Nault; Elizabeth Borycki; Kevin Schwartzman; Ravinder Singh; Jean-Paul Collet Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-03-10
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Shireen Patel; Joe Kai; Christopher Atha; Anthony Avery; Boliang Guo; Marilyn James; Samuel Malins; Christopher Sampson; Michelle Stubley; Richard Morriss Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Juan V Luciano; Ana Fernández; Alejandra Pinto-Meza; Leila Luján; Juan A Bellón; Javier García-Campayo; María T Peñarrubia; Rita Fernández; Marta Sanavia; María E Blanco; Josep M Haro; Diego J Palao; Antoni Serrano-Blanco Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Amaia Calderón-Larrañaga; Chad Abrams; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Jonathan P Weiner; Alexandra Prados-Torres Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-01-21 Impact factor: 2.655