Patient Reasons For Encounter Research Articles

Reasons for encounter and health problems managed by general practitioners in the rural areas of Beijing, China: A cross-sectional study.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the patients’ reasons for encounter (RFE) and health problems managed by general practitioners (GPs) in the rural areas of Beijing to provide evidences for health services planning and GPs training.MethodsThis study was conducted at 14 community health service centers (CHSCs) in 6 suburban districts of Beijing, using a multistage sampling method. A total of 100 GPs was selected from the study sites. A self-designed data collection form was developed on the basis of Subjective-Objective-Assessment-Plan (SOAP), including patient characteristics, RFEs, health problems, interventions, and consultation length. Each GP recorded and coded their 100 consecutive patients’ RFEs and health problems with the International Classification of Primary Care, 2nd version (ICPC-2). Descriptive statistics were employed to describe the distribution of RFE and health problems. Student t-test and analysis of variance were used to compare the differences of mean number of RFE or health problems per encounter by patient characteristics.ResultsA total of 10,000 patient encounters with 13,705 RFEs and 15,460 health problems were recorded. The RFEs and health problems were mainly distributed in respiratory, circulatory, musculoskeletal, endocrine, metabolic and nutritional, and digestive systems. Cough and hypertension were the most common RFE and health problem, respectively. With increased ages, the mean number of RFEs decreased and the mean number of health problems increased. Patients with Beijing medical insurance had less RFEs and more health problems than those in other cities (p<0.001). Patients who had visited the CHSC previously and signed contracts with the GP team had more health problems than those who had not (p<0.001).ConclusionsThese findings present a view of patients’ demands and work contents of GPs in Beijing rural areas and can provide reference for health services planning and GPs training.

Chiropractic Observation and Analysis Study (COAST): providing an understanding of current chiropractic practice

COAST (Chiropractic Observation and Analysis Study) aimed to describe the clinical practices of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia. Cross-sectional study using the BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) methods for general practice. 180 chiropractors in active clinical practice in Victoria were randomly selected from the list of 1298 chiropractors registered on Chiropractors Registration Board of Victoria. Twenty-four chiropractors were ineligible, 72 agreed to participate, and 52 completed the study. Each participating chiropractor documented encounters with up to 100 consecutive patients. For each chiropractor-patient encounter, information collected included patient health profile, patient reasons for encounter, problems and diagnoses, and chiropractic care. Data were collected on 4464 chiropractor-patient encounters from 52 chiropractors between 11 December 2010 and 28 September 2012. In most (71%) encounters, patients were aged 25-64 years; 1% of encounters were with infants (age < 1 year; 95% CI, 0.3%-3.2%). Musculoskeletal reasons for encounter were described by patients at a rate of 60 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 54-67 encounters) and maintenance and wellness or check-up reasons were described at a rate of 39 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 33-47 encounters). Back problems were managed at a rate of 62 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 55-71 encounters). The most frequent care provided by the chiropractors was spinal manipulative therapy and massage. A range of conditions are managed by chiropractors in Victoria, Australia, but most commonly these conditions are musculoskeletal-related. These results can be used by stakeholders of the chiropractic profession in workforce development, education and health care policy.

Sex of the GP — 20 years on

Previous research with the Australian Morbidity and Treatment Survey (1990-1991) showed significant differences in general practitioner characteristics and patient mix of male and female GPs. Even after adjusting for these, it was seen that male and female GPs managed different types of medical conditions. The proportion of female GPs increased from 19.6% in 1990-1991 to 37.1% in 2009-2010. This study investigates whether differences remain two decades later. Analysis of 2009-2010 Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) data examining GP characteristics, patient encounter characteristics, patient reasons for encounter (RFE), problem types managed and management methods used, by GP sex. Whether GP sex was an independent predictor of problem types being managed, or management methods used, was tested using multiple logistic regressions and Poisson regression. 988 GPs recorded 98 800 GP-patient encounters. Adjusted differences in clinical activity of male and female GPs. After adjustment, compared with male GPs, females recorded more RFEs about general and unspecified issues and endocrine, female genital, pregnancy and family planning problems; and fewer concerning the musculoskeletal, respiratory, skin and male genital systems. Female GPs managed more general and unspecified, digestive, circulatory, psychological, endocrine, female genital and social problems; recorded nearly 20% more clinical treatments and referrals; recorded nearly 10% more imaging and pathology tests; and 4.3% fewer medications. After two decades, even with increased numbers of female GPs, the differences in problems managed by male and female GPs remain, and will probably continue. Female GPs use more resources per encounter, but may not use more resources in terms of annual patient care.

Consultations in general practice and at an Aboriginal community controlled health service: do they differ?

Despite the widely acknowledged health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, little is known about consultations in primary care with Indigenous people. In particular, the nature of consultations in the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS) sector has been rarely studied. Data collection about consultations in primary care has been steadily improving, with good quality data now available on an ongoing basis about patient demographics, risk factors and consultation content in private general practice. This study aimed to characterise consultations at Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Service (TAIHS) in terms of patient demographics and consultation content. These could then be compared with existing datasets for local consultations in mainstream general practice and from a geographically distant ACCHS. We conducted a prospective questionnaire audit of all consultations at Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Service (TAIHS) over two fortnights, 6 months apart in 2000 and 2001. The questionnaire was adapted from one used in previous general practice surveys, and was completed by the treating clinician at the end of each consultation. The questionnaire described consultations using the following variables: date of consultation; patient age; ethnicity and gender; postcode and whether or not they were new to the practice; where they were seen; the provider of the service (doctor, nurse, health worker etc); Medicare level of consultation; patient reasons for encounter; problems managed; treatment and medications given; investigations; admissions; follow up; and referral. Proportions with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to facilitate comparisons with other datasets. Comparison was made with previously reported data from mainstream Townsville general practice (via the local BEACH study report) and from Darwin ACCHS (Danila Dilba). Of 1211 consultations studied, 1994 problems managed were recorded. TAIHS patients had a significantly younger age distribution than patients in mainstream general practice (as did patients at Danila Dilba). TAIHS consultations involved the management of more problems (1.65 problems per consultation; 95%CI [1.60, 1.70]), when compared with mainstream general practice (Townsville BEACH study 1.45 problems per consultation [1.37, 1.52]; 1.48 for Indigenous patients). Danila Dilba recorded an average of 1.58 problems managed per consultation (95% CI [1.51, 1.65]). The most frequently managed problems differed between all three datasets, and at TAIHS the most common problems managed were type 2 diabetes mellitus (11.3 times per 100 consultations), upper respiratory tract infections (9.6) and hypertension (7.9). Aboriginal Health Workers (AHW) saw the patient at TAIHS in 224/1213 (18.5%) of consultations, nurses (two Indigenous) participated in 513 (42.3%) of consultations, and a (non-Indigenous) medical officer saw the patient in 1070 (88.2%) of consultations. The Danila Dilba study found that 42.6% of their consultations involved an Aboriginal health worker only, and a health worker and a doctor managed 53.5%; only 3.9% were managed by a doctor alone without input from a health worker. The greater number of problems managed per consultation in ACCHS, compared with Indigenous patients in mainstream general practice, supports the assertion that ACCHS fill an important role in the health system by providing care for their largely Indigenous patients with complex care needs. The Medicare system as it was structured at the time did not encourage involvement of Indigenous health workers in provision of primary medical care. It remains to be seen whether introduction of the new enhanced primary care Medicare numbers will assist in this process. These findings have implications for ACCHS in other areas of the country and for other providers of primary health care for Indigenous Australians.

A comparison of country and metropolitan general practice

To provide a description of country general practice in Australia, and to determine the extent to which country and metropolitan general practice differ in terms of the characteristics of the practitioners, the morbidity managed, treatments provided and the availability of support services. A survey requiring the recording of details of all direct and indirect patient encounters on encounter forms by a sample of general practitioners (GPs). Each GP recorded for two one-week periods separated by an interval of six months, between October 1990 and October 1991. The recording weeks were spread as evenly as possible throughout the year. Participants were drawn from a list of medical practitioners in Queensland, NSW and Victoria who provided more than 1500 general practice Medicare items of service during the previous year. The sample was stratified within States by population of postcode, into metropolitan areas and three country strata: "small country towns" (population less than 5000); "medium country towns" (5000-15,000); and "large country towns" (more than 15,000). The total country sample is referred to as "country areas". Planned sample size was 180 country GPs (20 in each stratum in each State) and 60 metropolitan GPs (20 in each of the three State capital cities). The final data set was weighted to be representative of the distribution of the source population. The variables studied included: GP characteristics; practice isolation factors; patient age, sex and status to the practice; patient reasons for encounter (up to three per encounter); problems managed (up to four); drugs prescribed and other treatments provided (up to four per problem); tests and investigations ordered and referrals made at these encounters; and planned follow-up. Data were centrally coded. Participation rate: The final sample of 231 GPs (177 country and 54 metropolitan) recorded information during 435 recording weeks (336 country and 99 metropolitan). These practitioners represented 50.7% of those contacted and available, the response rate being better in country (57.5%) than in metropolitan (36.5%) areas. A practice profile questionnaire which included questions regarding the doctor and the practice was completed by 97.4% of participants, while a questionnaire on distance from support services was completed by 93.8% of country participants. The final weighted data set included 51,741 encounters with country GPs and 11,351 with metropolitan GPs. The general practitioners: Country GPs were less likely to be female or to conduct consultations in a language other than English, and were more likely to do some work on a salaried or sessional basis. GPs from small country towns were older, more likely to be in solo practice, and more likely to belong to a professional organisation. "Remoteness" of towns: Nearly all towns were within 25 km of a hospital, but far fewer small and medium country towns were within 50 km of a base hospital than large country towns. X-ray services were almost universally available within 50 km, and with the exception of small country towns so were pathology services. Access to medical specialists and to a lesser degree other health professionals decreased with population size--patients in 30% of small towns had to travel over 100 km to see many specialists and some health professionals. Self-reported procedural work: GPs in small and medium country towns were more likely than those in large towns to report performing procedural work, the largest difference being in the area of em

6. Patient reasons for encounter

6. Patient reasons for encounter

6. Patient reasons for encounter

6. Patient reasons for encounter