Consultation rate and mode in English general practice, 2018 to 2022: a population-based study by deprivation
Vestesson, E.; De Corte, K. L. A.; Crellin, E.; Ledger, J.; Bakhai, M.; Clarke, G. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on primary care service delivery. With general practice delivering record numbers of appointments and rising concerns around access, funding and staffing in the UK National Health Service, we assessed contemporary trends in consultation rate and mode (face-to-face versus remote). MethodsWe did a retrospective analysis of 9,429,919 consultations by GP, nurse or other health care professional between March 2018 and February 2022 for patients registered at 397 English general practices. We used routine electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum with linkage to national datasets. Negative binomial models were used to predict consultation rates and modes (remote versus face-to-face) by age, sex, and socio-economic deprivation. FindingsOverall consultation rates increased by 15% from 4.92 in 2018-19 to 5.66 in 2021-22 with some fluctuation during the start of the pandemic. Consultation rates increased with deprivation. The breakdown into face-to-face and remote consultations shows that the pandemic precipitated a rapid increase in remote consultations across all groups but varies by age. Socioeconomic differences in consultation rate, adjusted for sex and age, halved during the pandemic (from 0.36 to 0.18 more consultations in the most deprived). The most deprived saw a relatively larger increase in remote and decrease in face-to-face consultations rates. InterpretationSubstantial increases in consultation rates imply increased pressure on general practice. The narrowing of consultation rates between deprivation quintiles is cause for concern, given ample evidence that health needs are greater in more deprived areas. FundingNo external funding. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSPressure on general practice has increased over recent years and there is consensus that the COVID-19 pandemic added to this. There is also consensus that the way general practice is delivering care has changed with increased use of remote consultation but there no estimates of the full extent of this and uptake by different groups. A seminal paper - Clinical workload in UK primary care: a retrospective analysis of 100 million consultations in England, 2007-14 - found an increase in consultation rates over the study period and in increased reliance on telephone contacts even before the pandemic. Added value of this studyThis study reports recent data for general practice consultation rates overall and by delivery mode. Our findings show that overall consultation rates were higher in 2021-22 than prior to the pandemic and that there has been a shift from face-to-face to remote consultations. However, the increase in overall consultations rates varies between index of multiple deprivation quintiles when adjusting for age and sex. These findings are based on close to 10 million consultations and 2 million person-years of observation from a validated data base of routinely collected electronic clinical records (the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum). Implications of all the available evidenceOur analysis shows that general practice is busier than ever. We provide details on the use of remote versus face-to-face consultations by different patient groups over time. The narrowing of the difference between consultation rates of deprivation quintiles implies increasing health inequality in the population as existing differences in health needs are therefore not fully reflected in the consultation rates. The relatively larger increase in remote consultation rates and drop in face-to-face consultations for the most deprived provides detail on what type of consultations different patient groups receive but also raises additional questions.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Primary care transformation in Scotland: a comparison two cross-sectional national surveys of general practitioners’ views in 2018 and 2023 96%
- Changes in General Practice use and costs with COVID-19 and telehealth initiatives 95%
- OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 1: describing trends and variation in primary care clinical activity for 23.3 million patients in England during the first wave of COVID-19 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trends in inequalities in avoidable hospitalisations across the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study of 23.5 million people in England 94%
- What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study 94%
- How and why do Quality Circles work for General Practitioners - a realist approach 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed-methods evaluation of patients’ views on primary care multi-disciplinary teams in Scotland 94%
- Patient characteristics associated with clinically coded long COVID: an OpenSAFELY study using electronic health records 93%
- Patients’ perspectives on ecologically sustainable healthcare in general practice 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 collateral: Indirect acute effects of the pandemic on physical and mental health in the UK 94%
- An external validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of mortality from COVID-19 in adults: national validation cohort study in England 93%
- Remote Covid Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVI-Prim survey: Challenges for Austrian and German general practitioners during initial phase of COVID-19 94%
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 94%
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.