10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing the clinical practice and prescribing safety of locum and permanent doctors: observational study of primary care consultations in England

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Temporary doctors, known as locums, are a key component of the medical workforce in the NHS but evidence on differences in quality and safety between locum and permanent doctors is limited. We aimed to examine differences in the clinical practice, and prescribing safety for locum and permanent doctors working in primary care in England.

          Methods

          We accessed electronic health care records (EHRs) for 3.5 million patients from the CPRD GOLD database with linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2022. We used multi-level mixed effects logistic regression to compare consultations with locum and permanent GPs for several patient outcomes including general practice revisits; prescribing of antibiotics; strong opioids; hypnotics; A&E visits; emergency hospital admissions; admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions; test ordering; referrals; and prescribing safety indicators while controlling for patient and practice characteristics.

          Results

          Consultations with locum GPs were 22% more likely to involve a prescription for an antibiotic (OR = 1.22 (1.21 to 1.22)), 8% more likely to involve a prescription for a strong opioid (OR = 1.08 (1.06 to 1.09)), 4% more likely to be followed by an A&E visit on the same day (OR = 1.04 (1.01 to 1.08)) and 5% more likely to be followed by an A&E visit within 1 to 7 days (OR = 1.05 (1.02 to 1.08)). Consultations with a locum were 12% less likely to lead to a practice revisit within 7 days (OR = 0.88 (0.87 to 0.88)), 4% less likely to involve a prescription for a hypnotic (OR = 0.96 (0.94 to 0.98)), 15% less likely to involve a referral (OR = 0.85 (0.84 to 0.86)) and 19% less likely to involve a test (OR = 0.81 (0.80 to 0.82)). We found no evidence that emergency admissions, ACSC admissions and eight out of the eleven prescribing safety indicators were different if patients were seen by a locum or a permanent GP.

          Conclusions

          Despite existing concerns, the clinical practice and performance of locum GPs did not appear to be systematically different from that of permanent GPs. The practice and performance of both locum and permanent GPs is likely shaped by the organisational setting and systems within which they work.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-024-03332-z.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

          The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is an ongoing primary care database of anonymised medical records from general practitioners, with coverage of over 11.3 million patients from 674 practices in the UK. With 4.4 million active (alive, currently registered) patients meeting quality criteria, approximately 6.9% of the UK population are included and patients are broadly representative of the UK general population in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. General practitioners are the gatekeepers of primary care and specialist referrals in the UK. The CPRD primary care database is therefore a rich source of health data for research, including data on demographics, symptoms, tests, diagnoses, therapies, health-related behaviours and referrals to secondary care. For over half of patients, linkage with datasets from secondary care, disease-specific cohorts and mortality records enhance the range of data available for research. The CPRD is very widely used internationally for epidemiological research and has been used to produce over 1000 research studies, published in peer-reviewed journals across a broad range of health outcomes. However, researchers must be aware of the complexity of routinely collected electronic health records, including ways to manage variable completeness, misclassification and development of disease definitions for research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review.

            The UK-based General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is a valuable source of longitudinal primary care records and is increasingly used for epidemiological research. To conduct a systematic review of the literature on accuracy and completeness of diagnostic coding in the GPRD. Systematic review. Six electronic databases were searched using search terms relating to the GPRD, in association with terms synonymous with validity, accuracy, concordance, and recording. A positive predictive value was calculated for each diagnosis that considered a comparison with a gold standard. Studies were also considered that compared the GPRD with other databases and national statistics. A total of 49 papers are included in this review. Forty papers conducted validation of a clinical diagnosis in the GPRD. When assessed against a gold standard (validation using GP questionnaire, primary care medical records, or hospital correspondence), most of the diagnoses were accurately recorded in the patient electronic record. Acute conditions were not as well recorded, with positive predictive values lower than 50%. Twelve papers compared prevalence or consultation rates in the GPRD against other primary care databases or national statistics. Generally, there was good agreement between disease prevalence and consultation rates between the GPRD and other datasets; however, rates of diabetes and musculoskeletal conditions were underestimated in the GPRD. Most of the diagnoses coded in the GPRD are well recorded. Researchers using the GPRD may want to consider how well the disease of interest is recorded before planning research, and consider how to optimise the identification of clinical events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Research Commentary—Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and thep-Value Problem

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Christos.grigoroglou@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                27 March 2024
                27 March 2024
                2024
                : 22
                : 126
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, ( https://ror.org/027m9bs27) Manchester, UK
                [2 ]Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, ( https://ror.org/027m9bs27) Manchester, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.5379.8, ISNI 0000000121662407, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, , University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                [4 ]Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, University of Manchester, ( https://ror.org/027m9bs27) Manchester, UK
                [5 ]Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, ( https://ror.org/03angcq70) Birmingham, UK
                [6 ]NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, University of Manchester, ( https://ror.org/027m9bs27) Manchester, UK
                [7 ]Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, School of Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, ( https://ror.org/027m9bs27) Manchester, UK
                [8 ]Danish Centre for Health Economics, University of Southern Denmark, ( https://ror.org/03yrrjy16) Odense, Denmark
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1621-8648
                Article
                3332
                10.1186/s12916-024-03332-z
                10967114
                38532468
                8bad53ad-8a19-4531-9984-287fc478961a
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 22 November 2023
                : 29 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: NIHR128349
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Medicine
                locum doctors,quality,patient safety,electronic health records,medical workforce,general practice

                Comments

                Comment on this article