Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Debate & Analysis

Core management data in general practice

Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Helen Kingdon, Molly Dineen, Philip Evans and Alex Harding
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (690): 36-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X707669
Denis Pereira Gray
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kate Sidaway-Lee
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Kingdon
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Practice Business Manager
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Molly Dineen
University of Exeter, Exeter; St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Medical Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip Evans
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter; Associate Professor, University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Exeter.
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex Harding
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter; Associate Professor, University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Exeter.
Roles: Partner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

General practice computer systems are remarkably sophisticated but their potential is underused.

In contrast many private sector businesses use IT meticulously to measure performance. For example, many retail stores know exactly how sales change according to how they position goods in the shop or even how they alter the lighting. Following Drucker,1 the father of management theory, ‘If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it.’

Drawing on research and data collection performed at a practice over 30 years, we suggest that there are eight core management statistics that are easily available to every general practice. These make it possible for GPs to understand exactly what is happening in the practice. The core data are: the number, the age/sex structure and the duration of registration of the registered patients, the annual consultation rate, the average duration of face-to-face GP consultations, level of continuity of care, and measures of routine appointment provision and availability.

PRACTICE LIST SIZE

All GPs already understand the importance of knowing the number of patients registered with the practice and this figure is commonly used when describing a general practice.

AGE/SEX STRUCTURE OF THE POPULATION SERVED

This is available for the population nationally, regionally, and for individual practices. It is particularly helpful to know the proportion of older patients, since they have many more health problems, which helps planning. This is freely available to all practices on the Public Health England Practice Profiles website (https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/general-practice).

DURATION OF REGISTRATION OF THE REGISTERED PATIENTS

This is an important statistic indicating how long patients stay in the practice, the number coming and going each year (turnover rate), hence the net increase or decrease of the practice population and how long some specific groups of patients stay, such as patients aged >75 years. It can also be used to track longitudinally the prevalence of chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes.2 Long duration of registration is one of the great strengths of British general practice and is widely underestimated. For example, Barker et al 3 found that the key group of patients with multiple long-term conditions had been registered with their general practices for a median of 15 years; a rich opportunity to develop good patient–doctor relationships if continuity of care is provided.

ANNUAL CONSULTATION RATE

This is a fundamental management statistic that enables the practice to understand its own workload and measure how changes in management actually work out. It is important as some policies designed to reduce workload unintentionally lead to patients coming more often. In particular, practices need to understand how different kinds of general practice, different practice populations, and different policies are associated with very different consultation rates. There appear to be large differences between practices. For example, a figure of 3.18 or more face-to-face GP consultations per patient per year is the average for England.4 However, in our practice this is 1.96.5 This difference has big implications for the reception system and for all doctors within a practice. For example, for an average-sized practice of 8000 patients, a decrease in the annual consultation rate of 0.5 per patient per year means 4000 fewer appointments. This equates to at least 250 fewer surgeries; that is, around five per week and probably one less part-time doctor.

NHS Digital has recently started to collect data from a large proportion of GP practices including the number of consultations and did-not-attends, but only at the level of clinical commissioning group, not at practice level. These data are publicly available but as yet are not used to their full potential.

DURATION OF FACE-TO-FACE GP CONSULTATIONS

Longer consultations are better for patients as they are significantly more patient centred.6 Patients perceived doctors as being ‘less tense’ and ‘more relaxed’ in longer consultations.7

There are great differences between general practices in the length of time patients receive in GP consultations, from 9.4 minutes on average as reported by Hobbs et al4 to over 15 minutes in a growing minority of practices.5

MEASURING CONTINUITY OF CARE RECEIVED BY PATIENTS IN GENERAL PRACTICE

A recent systematic review showed that continuity of care with doctors was associated with reduced mortality,8 and Barker et al 3 showed that continuity was reduced in larger group practices. This came after much research showing at least eight substantial benefits from continuity of care.9 So, measuring the level of continuity of doctor care has become a priority. There are several ways to do this, but the most used, the Usual Provider Continuity (UPC), only measures the provider most often seen and not the personal doctor, and may count a locum or a GP registrar as the index doctor. Sidaway-Lee et al 5 report an alternative method of measuring continuity known as the St Leonard’s Index of Continuity of Care (SLICC) and suggest this is the simplest method for use in service general practices. This can be calculated from GP computer systems in common use, for a whole practice, individual doctor’s list, or other specific patient group.

All NHS general practice patients have a named GP. Personal list practices go further and provide a doctor who takes personal responsibility for the patients on their list. Measuring the proportion of patients who actually see their personal or named doctor when they consult is now logical.

From a GP perspective, it also makes sense to count the proportion of a GP’s appointments that are with the patients on their own list/for whom they are named doctor. We term this the ‘own patient ratio’ and this can be commonly >80% even in practices with part-time GPs and offering same-day appointments.

NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS PROVIDED PER WEEK

The number of appointments provided each week or month is an important statistic in every general practice and it is helpful to know the number of telephone consultations also. These data should be reviewed regularly in light of the annual consultation rate.

PATIENT TIME TO GET AN APPOINTMENT

What matters to patients is how easy it is to make an appointment, particularly with the GP of their choice. This is conveniently counted in days and is another of the core management statistics. It is important that practices should have objective data that they have measured.

OVERVIEW

With advances in digitalisation and data availability, statistics like these will be increasingly valued. NHS England should ideally have these overall management data as well, nationally and regionally, to enable them to take a national view of general practice and monitor the real impact of new policies.

These eight measures are all currently possible and in use in some practices. They take 2 hours a week of staff time in our practice plus how ever much time the managers and partners take to reflect on the data. It would be helpful if the NHS could commission the main providers of general practice computing systems to make them more easily available to practices. They give staff in general practices an overview of what is actually happening and, in particular, how things are changing over time. We find them of great interest and use in day-to-day general practice.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; not externally peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Drucker P
    (1954) The practice of management (Harper Collins, New York, NY).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Evans P,
    2. Langley P,
    3. Pereira Gray D
    (2008) Diagnosing type 2 diabetes before patients complain of diabetic symptoms — clinical opportunistic screening in a single general practice. Fam Pract 25(5):376–381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Barker I,
    2. Steventon A,
    3. Williamson R,
    4. Deeny SR
    (2018) Self-management capability in patients with long-term conditions is associated with reduced healthcare utilisation across a whole health economy: cross-sectional analysis of electronic health records. BMJ Qual Saf 27(12):989–999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hobbs FDR,
    2. Bankhead C,
    3. Mukhtar T,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Clinical workload in UK primary care: a retrospective analysis of 100 million consultations in England, 2007–14. Lancet 387(10035):2323–2330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sidaway-Lee K,
    2. Pereira Gray D,
    3. Evans P
    (2019) Br J Gen Pract, A method for measuring continuity of care in day-to-day general practice. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X701813.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Orton PK,
    2. Pereira Gray D
    (2016) Factors influencing consultation length in general/family practice. Fam Pract 33(5):529–534.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Howie JG,
    2. Porter AM,
    3. Heaney DJ,
    4. Hopton JL
    (1991) Long to short consultation ratio: a proxy measure of quality of care for general practice. Br J Gen Pract 41(343):48–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Pereira Gray DJ,
    2. Sidaway-Lee K,
    3. White E,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Continuity of care with doctors — a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 8(6):e021161.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Pereira Gray D,
    2. Sidaway-Lee K,
    3. White E,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Improving continuity: THE clinical challenge. InnovAiT 9(10):635–644.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (690)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 690
January 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Core management data in general practice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Core management data in general practice
Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Helen Kingdon, Molly Dineen, Philip Evans, Alex Harding
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (690): 36-37. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X707669

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Core management data in general practice
Denis Pereira Gray, Kate Sidaway-Lee, Helen Kingdon, Molly Dineen, Philip Evans, Alex Harding
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (690): 36-37. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X707669
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • PRACTICE LIST SIZE
    • AGE/SEX STRUCTURE OF THE POPULATION SERVED
    • DURATION OF REGISTRATION OF THE REGISTERED PATIENTS
    • ANNUAL CONSULTATION RATE
    • DURATION OF FACE-TO-FACE GP CONSULTATIONS
    • MEASURING CONTINUITY OF CARE RECEIVED BY PATIENTS IN GENERAL PRACTICE
    • NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS PROVIDED PER WEEK
    • PATIENT TIME TO GET AN APPOINTMENT
    • OVERVIEW
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • SAFER diagnosis: a teaching system to help reduce diagnostic errors in primary care
  • An Australian reflects on the Collings report 70 years on
  • Emergencies in general practice: could checklists support teams in stressful situations?
Show more Debate & Analysis

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242