Use of tests in UK primary care

General practitioner gender and use of diagnostic procedures: a French cross-sectional study in training practices

OBJECTIVES

The acceleration in the number of female doctors has led to questions about differences in how men and women practice medicine. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of general practitioner (GP) gender on the use of the three main categories of diagnostic procedures-clinical examinations, laboratory tests and imaging investigations.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional nationwide multicentre study.

SETTING

French training general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

The patient sample included all the voluntary patients over a cumulative period of 5 days per office between November 2011 and April 2012. The GP sample included 85 males and 43 females.

METHODS

54 interns in general practice, observing their GP supervisors, collected data about the characteristics of GPs and consultations, as well as the health problems managed during the visit and the processes of care associated with them. Using hierarchical multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression models, we performed multivariable analyses to assess differences in each of the three main categories of diagnostic procedures, and two specific multivariable analyses for each category, distinguishing screening from diagnostic or follow-up procedures. We searched for interactions between GP gender and patient gender or type of health problem managed.

RESULTS

This analysis of 45 582 health problems managed in 20 613 consultations showed that female GPs performed more clinical examinations than male GPs, both for screening (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.58) and for diagnostic or follow-up purposes (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.84). Female GPs also ordered laboratory tests for diagnostic or follow-up purposes more frequently (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.43). Female GPs performed even more clinical examinations than male GPs to diagnose or follow-up injuries (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.40).

CONCLUSION

Further research on the appropriateness of diagnostic procedures is required to determine to what extent these differences are related to underuse or overuse.

Guidance for post-discharge care following acute kidney injury: an appropriateness ratings evaluation

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with poor health outcomes, including increased mortality and rehospitalisation. National policy and patient safety drivers have targeted AKI as an example to ensure safer transitions of care.

AIM

To establish guidance to promote high-quality transitions of care for adults following episodes of illness complicated by AKI.

DESIGN & SETTING

An appropriateness ratings evaluation was undertaken using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) AKI working group developed a range of clinical scenarios to help identify the necessary steps to be taken following discharge of a patient from secondary care into primary care in the UK.

METHOD

A 10-person expert panel was convened to rate 819 clinical scenarios, testing the most appropriate time and action following hospital discharge. Specifically, the scenarios focused on determining the appropriateness and urgency for planning: an initial medication review; monitoring of kidney function; and assessment for albuminuria.

RESULTS

Taking no action (that is, no medication review; no kidney monitoring; or no albuminuria testing) was rated inappropriate in all cases. In most scenarios, there was consensus that both the initial medication review and kidney function monitoring should take place within 1-2 weeks or 1 month, depending on clinical context. However, patients with heart failure and poor kidney recovery were rated to require expedited review. There was consensus that assessment for albuminuria should take place at 3 months after discharge following AKI.

CONCLUSION

Systems to support tailored and timely post-AKI discharge care are required, especially in high-risk populations, such as people with heart failure.