Literature DB >> 2107833

Inviting infrequent attenders to attend for a health check: costs and benefits.

N F Thompson.   

Abstract

A total of 114 patients who had not attended their general practitioner in the previous three years were identified by searching a sample of 1488 records (12.8% of the practice list). An invitation for a health check was sent, in keeping with the requirements of the new general practitioner contract. Seventeen out of 94 patients invited (18%) attended. Surgery staff spent 28 hours and the practice doctors spent 15 hours on arranging and carrying out the investigation. The group responding to the invitation were in general healthy; the only new finding of remediable disease was mild hypertension in one man. The smoking rate and alcohol consumption rate were low. Of 13 patients who needed tetanus immunization, five refused it and five failed to return. All three women who were overdue for a cervical smear failed to return to have it done. It is concluded that screening infrequent attenders is not an efficient use of medical time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2107833      PMCID: PMC1371208     

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


  4 in total

1.  A controlled trial of multiphasic screening.

Authors:  D M Olsen; R L Kane; P H Proctor
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1976-04-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Screening in family practice: prevention, levels of evidence, and the pitfalls of common sense.

Authors:  D L Sackett
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 0.493

3.  Can health screening damage your health?

Authors:  H G Stoate
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1989-05

Review 4.  Labelling in hypertension: a review of the behavioural and psychological consequences.

Authors:  L A Macdonald; D L Sackett; R B Haynes; D W Taylor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1984
  4 in total
  10 in total

1.  The use of targets to improve the performance of health care providers: a discussion of government policy.

Authors:  R Elkan; J Robinson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Rule of halves: implications of increasing diagnosis and reducing dropout for future workload and prescribing costs in primary care.

Authors:  J T Hart
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Coronary heart disease: preventable but not prevented?

Authors:  J T Hart
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Patients not seen in three years: will invitations for health checks be of benefit?

Authors:  J Noakes
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Registration health checks: inverse care in the inner city?

Authors:  C Griffiths; S Cooke; P Toon
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Screen detected high blood pressure under 40: a general practice population followed up for 21 years.

Authors:  J T Hart; C Edwards; M Hart; J Jones; M Jones; A Haines; G Watt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-02-13

7.  Case against targeting long term non-attenders in general practice for a health check.

Authors:  K J Thomas; J P Nicholl; M Fall; A Lowy; B T Williams
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Twenty five years of case finding and audit in a socially deprived community.

Authors:  J T Hart; C Thomas; B Gibbons; C Edwards; M Hart; J Jones; M Jones; P Walton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-06-22

Review 9.  What do we know about who does and does not attend general health checks? Findings from a narrative scoping review.

Authors:  Ruth Dryden; Brian Williams; Colin McCowan; Markus Themessl-Huber
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on screening for cardiovascular disease risk in a primary prevention population: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Sarah-Jane Lang; Gary A Abel; Jonathan Mant; Ricky Mullis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.