B Leese1, N Bosanquet. 1. Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the changes in the structure and service provision of general practice in areas with different socioeconomic characteristics. DESIGN: Interview survey; postal questionnaire. SETTING: 260 group and 80 singlehanded general practices in six family health services authorities in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in computerisation, premises, staffing, incomes, and service provision since the introduction of the 1990 contract, including comparison with data from a study in 1987. RESULTS: In 1993, 94% (245) of group practices were computerised compared with 38% in 1987, and 35% (90) of practices had used the cost rent scheme since 1987. Practice managers were employed in 88% (228) of group practices, and practice nurses in 96% (249) (61% and 60% respectively in 1987). Diabetes and asthma programmes were generally more common in the more affluent areas than elsewhere. A minority of practices (27% (9/33)) in the London inner city area achieved the higher target level for cervical smear testing, compared with 88% (230) overall. A similar trend was apparent for childhood immunisation. Perceived workload increased sharply between 1987 and 1993. Differences in the mean net incomes of general practitioners between areas were much lower than in 1987. Singlehanded practices generally had more problems than group practices in improving service provision. CONCLUSIONS: Practices in all areas have shown a strong response to the new incentives. The evidence suggests, however, that generally the urban and inner city practices still lag behind practices in rural and suburban areas in terms of practice structure and service provision.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the changes in the structure and service provision of general practice in areas with different socioeconomic characteristics. DESIGN: Interview survey; postal questionnaire. SETTING: 260 group and 80 singlehanded general practices in six family health services authorities in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in computerisation, premises, staffing, incomes, and service provision since the introduction of the 1990 contract, including comparison with data from a study in 1987. RESULTS: In 1993, 94% (245) of group practices were computerised compared with 38% in 1987, and 35% (90) of practices had used the cost rent scheme since 1987. Practice managers were employed in 88% (228) of group practices, and practice nurses in 96% (249) (61% and 60% respectively in 1987). Diabetes and asthma programmes were generally more common in the more affluent areas than elsewhere. A minority of practices (27% (9/33)) in the London inner city area achieved the higher target level for cervical smear testing, compared with 88% (230) overall. A similar trend was apparent for childhood immunisation. Perceived workload increased sharply between 1987 and 1993. Differences in the mean net incomes of general practitioners between areas were much lower than in 1987. Singlehanded practices generally had more problems than group practices in improving service provision. CONCLUSIONS: Practices in all areas have shown a strong response to the new incentives. The evidence suggests, however, that generally the urban and inner city practices still lag behind practices in rural and suburban areas in terms of practice structure and service provision.