OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the views of primary care professionals about the current purpose, uses, potential, and workload implications of the statutory general practice annual report. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING: General practices in the Northern region. SUBJECTS: All practices in the region that were singlehanded, fundholding, non-fundholding and with more than five partners, and a one in three random sample of all non-fundholding practices (n = 318). RESULTS: 263 practices responded (83%). The report took a median of 12 hours to produce (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 hours; interquartile range 7-35). The main perceived purpose of the report was to monitor practice activity (165 respondents; 63% (95% confidence interval 57% to 69%)), but 44 respondents (17%; 13% to 22%) produced it only because it was contractually required. Practices included statutory and non-statutory data in these reports and would have liked comparative practice activity information (155 respondents; 59%) and "good ideas" (165 respondents; 63%) fed back to them. Respondents would have liked the annual report used to improve practice development planning (122 respondents; 46% (40% to 52%)), to facilitate audit (115 respondents; 44% (38% to 50%)), and to influence resource allocation (104 respondents; 40% (34% to 46%)). One hundred and eighteen practices (45%; 39% to 51%) would produce an annual report even if not contractually required. Data collected were perceived to be already available elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care professionals have concerns about the current annual report. They would prefer to collect relevant, standardised data which could lead to better audit, planning, and resource allocation.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the views of primary care professionals about the current purpose, uses, potential, and workload implications of the statutory general practice annual report. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING: General practices in the Northern region. SUBJECTS: All practices in the region that were singlehanded, fundholding, non-fundholding and with more than five partners, and a one in three random sample of all non-fundholding practices (n = 318). RESULTS: 263 practices responded (83%). The report took a median of 12 hours to produce (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 hours; interquartile range 7-35). The main perceived purpose of the report was to monitor practice activity (165 respondents; 63% (95% confidence interval 57% to 69%)), but 44 respondents (17%; 13% to 22%) produced it only because it was contractually required. Practices included statutory and non-statutory data in these reports and would have liked comparative practice activity information (155 respondents; 59%) and "good ideas" (165 respondents; 63%) fed back to them. Respondents would have liked the annual report used to improve practice development planning (122 respondents; 46% (40% to 52%)), to facilitate audit (115 respondents; 44% (38% to 50%)), and to influence resource allocation (104 respondents; 40% (34% to 46%)). One hundred and eighteen practices (45%; 39% to 51%) would produce an annual report even if not contractually required. Data collected were perceived to be already available elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care professionals have concerns about the current annual report. They would prefer to collect relevant, standardised data which could lead to better audit, planning, and resource allocation.