BACKGROUND: The shift in care from secondary to primary services is likely to place greater demands on community hospitals. Before changes in the provision of community hospitals can occur, baseline data are needed, outlining their current use. AIM: A study was undertaken to obtain baseline data describing the use of general practitioner beds in Leicestershire community hospitals. METHOD: A three-month prospective, observational study was carried out between February and May 1992 using data from a questionnaire completed by nurses and general practitioners and from patient hospital records. Study patients comprised all patients admitted to general practitioner beds in all eight Leicestershire community hospitals. RESULTS: A 100% questionnaire response rate was obtained giving data on 685 hospital admissions. Around 70% of admissions were of patients aged 75 years and over. Of admissions, 35% were for acute care, 31% for respite care, 22% for rehabilitation, 7% for terminal/palliative care and 5% for other reasons. Fifteen per cent of patients had been transferred from a consultant bed. Of those not transferred, 91% were admitted by their usual general practitioner or practice partner and for 96% of these patients this was the general practitioner's first choice for care. There was significant variation in both the age mix and care category mix of patients between individual hospitals. Medical deterioration in an underlying condition and family pressure on the general practitioner or carers' inability to cope each contributed to around half of all admissions. Of all admissions, 38% lived alone, and 18% of carers were disabled. Incontinence was reported for 35% of patients, and 26% of all patients were of a high nursing dependency. There was low utilization of community services before admission and 33% received none. There was variation between individual hospitals in use of local and district general hospital investigations, specialist referral and types of therapy. Of 685 admissions 11% died during their stay. Of those discharged, 76% went to their own or a relative's home, 10% to a residential or nursing home and 9% were transferred to an acute bed. Nine percent of discharges were postponed and 10% were brought forward. On discharge to non-residential care, 26% of patients received no community services. CONCLUSION: Shifting resources from secondary to primary care is a priority for purchasers. Both the introduction of the National Health Service and community care act 1990, and acute units having increasing incentives for earlier discharge, are likely to place greater demands on community hospital beds. Not all general practitioners have the option of community hospital beds. Before access to general practitioner beds can be broadened, existing beds should be used appropriately and shown to be cost-effective. Purchasers therefore require criteria for the appropriateness of admissions to general practitioner beds, and the results of a general practitioner bed cost-benefit analysis.
BACKGROUND: The shift in care from secondary to primary services is likely to place greater demands on community hospitals. Before changes in the provision of community hospitals can occur, baseline data are needed, outlining their current use. AIM: A study was undertaken to obtain baseline data describing the use of general practitioner beds in Leicestershire community hospitals. METHOD: A three-month prospective, observational study was carried out between February and May 1992 using data from a questionnaire completed by nurses and general practitioners and from patient hospital records. Study patients comprised all patients admitted to general practitioner beds in all eight Leicestershire community hospitals. RESULTS: A 100% questionnaire response rate was obtained giving data on 685 hospital admissions. Around 70% of admissions were of patients aged 75 years and over. Of admissions, 35% were for acute care, 31% for respite care, 22% for rehabilitation, 7% for terminal/palliative care and 5% for other reasons. Fifteen per cent of patients had been transferred from a consultant bed. Of those not transferred, 91% were admitted by their usual general practitioner or practice partner and for 96% of these patients this was the general practitioner's first choice for care. There was significant variation in both the age mix and care category mix of patients between individual hospitals. Medical deterioration in an underlying condition and family pressure on the general practitioner or carers' inability to cope each contributed to around half of all admissions. Of all admissions, 38% lived alone, and 18% of carers were disabled. Incontinence was reported for 35% of patients, and 26% of all patients were of a high nursing dependency. There was low utilization of community services before admission and 33% received none. There was variation between individual hospitals in use of local and district general hospital investigations, specialist referral and types of therapy. Of 685 admissions 11% died during their stay. Of those discharged, 76% went to their own or a relative's home, 10% to a residential or nursing home and 9% were transferred to an acute bed. Nine percent of discharges were postponed and 10% were brought forward. On discharge to non-residential care, 26% of patients received no community services. CONCLUSION: Shifting resources from secondary to primary care is a priority for purchasers. Both the introduction of the National Health Service and community care act 1990, and acute units having increasing incentives for earlier discharge, are likely to place greater demands on community hospital beds. Not all general practitioners have the option of community hospital beds. Before access to general practitioner beds can be broadened, existing beds should be used appropriately and shown to be cost-effective. Purchasers therefore require criteria for the appropriateness of admissions to general practitioner beds, and the results of a general practitioner bed cost-benefit analysis.