D M Fleming1, J Miles. 1. The Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, Birmingham B17 9DB, UK. dfleming@rcgpbhamresunit.nhs.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The representativeness of practice networks is important when using the information obtained to guide health policy. AIM: To develop a model for examining the representativeness of practice networks. METHODS: Comparison of surveyed population, practice structure and prescribing characteristics with the national data using the Weekly Returns Service (WRS) for 2006 as an example of practice network. The population monitored was compared with the national PCT population. The practice postcode was linked to the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the distribution compared with the national equivalents. Doctor and practice-specific structural data (obtained by questionnaire) and practice-prescribing data were compared with the national equivalents. The significance of differences was evaluated using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: The WRS population was closely matched with the national data by age, gender and deprivation index. Compared with the national equivalents, WRS practices, included more younger GPs, had a larger average list per GP and fewer practices with a list of less than 1499 per GP. Prescribing patterns were similar to their PCT equivalents excepting for small reductions of antibacterial prescribing (items 7% and cost 5%). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a low-cost model methodology for examining the representativeness of practice networks using independent data with minimum practice input.
BACKGROUND: The representativeness of practice networks is important when using the information obtained to guide health policy. AIM: To develop a model for examining the representativeness of practice networks. METHODS: Comparison of surveyed population, practice structure and prescribing characteristics with the national data using the Weekly Returns Service (WRS) for 2006 as an example of practice network. The population monitored was compared with the national PCT population. The practice postcode was linked to the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the distribution compared with the national equivalents. Doctor and practice-specific structural data (obtained by questionnaire) and practice-prescribing data were compared with the national equivalents. The significance of differences was evaluated using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: The WRS population was closely matched with the national data by age, gender and deprivation index. Compared with the national equivalents, WRS practices, included more younger GPs, had a larger average list per GP and fewer practices with a list of less than 1499 per GP. Prescribing patterns were similar to their PCT equivalents excepting for small reductions of antibacterial prescribing (items 7% and cost 5%). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a low-cost model methodology for examining the representativeness of practice networks using independent data with minimum practice input.
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Ana Correa; Gillian E Smith; Ivelina Yonova; Richard Pebody; Filipa Ferreira; Alex J Elliot; Douglas Fleming Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ashley Fowlkes; Andrea Steffens; Jon Temte; Steve Di Lonardo; Lisa McHugh; Karen Martin; Heather Rubino; Michelle Feist; Carol Davis; Christine Selzer; Jose Lojo; Oluwakemi Oni; Katie Kurkjian; Ann Thomas; Rachelle Boulton; Nicole Bryan; Ruth Lynfield; Matthew Biggerstaff; Lyn Finelli Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Marc Baguelin; Stefan Flasche; Anton Camacho; Nikolaos Demiris; Elizabeth Miller; W John Edmunds Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Peter J Gill; Kay Yee Wang; David Mant; Lisa Hartling; Carl Heneghan; Rafael Perera; Terry Klassen; Anthony Harnden Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cécile Souty; Clément Turbelin; Thierry Blanchon; Thomas Hanslik; Yann Le Strat; Pierre-Yves Boëlle Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2014-07-26