Christoph Strumann1, Timo Emcke2, Kristina Flägel3, Jost Steinhäuser3. 1. Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Lübeck, Deutschland. Electronic address: c.strumann@uni-luebeck.de. 2. Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Schleswig-Holstein, Bad Segeberg, Deutschland. 3. Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Lübeck, Deutschland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In many places in Germany, the need for primary care physicians has been steadily increasing for several years, especially in rural areas. It is hypothesized that physicians are more likely to practice in rural areas if they have received a broad education and vocational training. Differences between general practitioners (GPs) and physicians in general internal medicine (GIM) in the breadth of their vocational training are created by the underlying distinct training schemes. The aim of the analysis was to test whether GPs and GIM physicians differ in their distribution between urban and rural regions of Schleswig-Holstein and whether there are differences in the rate and frequency of performing home visits. METHODS: Based on invoicing data of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein (Northern Germany) covering the years 2015 up to the third quarter (Q3) of 2018, we analysed differences between GPs and GIM physicians in their regional distribution. Furthermore, we looked at differences between both specialties regarding the application rate and the number of home visits performed and unforeseen physician visits. In addition to bivariate approaches, we also used multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 2017 (Q4) and 2018 (Q3), 1,378 GPs and 585 GIM physicians provided medical services in Schleswig-Holstein. While 27.5 % of the GPs had practices in rural areas, the share of GIM physicians was 14.5 % (p < 0.001). Home visits were performed by 97.8 % of the GPs and 93.2 % of the GIM physicians (p < 0.001). This difference was even more pronounced in rural areas (99.5 % vs. 94.1 % (p = 0.002)). Significant differences have also been found in the number of billed home visits. GPs made 36 % more home visits than GIM physicians. In rural areas, the difference was 60 %. CONCLUSION: The analysis revealed significant differences between GPs and GIM physicians regarding the type of region where they work, the application rate and the number of performed home visits. The findings could foster a discussion about how GIM physicians can be better prepared to provide primary care, especially in rural areas.
OBJECTIVE: In many places in Germany, the need for primary care physicians has been steadily increasing for several years, especially in rural areas. It is hypothesized that physicians are more likely to practice in rural areas if they have received a broad education and vocational training. Differences between general practitioners (GPs) and physicians in general internal medicine (GIM) in the breadth of their vocational training are created by the underlying distinct training schemes. The aim of the analysis was to test whether GPs and GIM physicians differ in their distribution between urban and rural regions of Schleswig-Holstein and whether there are differences in the rate and frequency of performing home visits. METHODS: Based on invoicing data of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein (Northern Germany) covering the years 2015 up to the third quarter (Q3) of 2018, we analysed differences between GPs and GIM physicians in their regional distribution. Furthermore, we looked at differences between both specialties regarding the application rate and the number of home visits performed and unforeseen physician visits. In addition to bivariate approaches, we also used multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 2017 (Q4) and 2018 (Q3), 1,378 GPs and 585 GIM physicians provided medical services in Schleswig-Holstein. While 27.5 % of the GPs had practices in rural areas, the share of GIM physicians was 14.5 % (p < 0.001). Home visits were performed by 97.8 % of the GPs and 93.2 % of the GIM physicians (p < 0.001). This difference was even more pronounced in rural areas (99.5 % vs. 94.1 % (p = 0.002)). Significant differences have also been found in the number of billed home visits. GPs made 36 % more home visits than GIM physicians. In rural areas, the difference was 60 %. CONCLUSION: The analysis revealed significant differences between GPs and GIM physicians regarding the type of region where they work, the application rate and the number of performed home visits. The findings could foster a discussion about how GIM physicians can be better prepared to provide primary care, especially in rural areas.
Keywords:
Allgemeinmedizinerin und Allgemeinmediziner; Differences in healthcare practice; General Practitioner; General internal medicine; Hausärztlich tätige Internistin und hausärztlich tätiger Internist; Hausärztliche Versorgung; Home visits; Primary care; Versorgungsunterschiede, Hausbesuche
Authors: Simon Schwill; Katja Krug; Aaron Poppleton; Dorothee Reith; Jonas D Senft; Joachim Szecsenyi; Sandra Stengel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 3.006