Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care
The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses. To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records. Delphi study to select pote...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of general practice 2021-06, Vol.71 (707), p.e423-e431 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e431 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 707 |
| container_start_page | e423 |
| container_title | British journal of general practice |
| container_volume | 71 |
| creator | Salisbury, Chris Lay-Flurrie, Sarah Bankhead, Clare R Fuller, Alice Murphy, Mairead Caddick, Barbara Ordóñez-Mena, José M Holt, Tim Nicholson, Brian D Perera, Rafael Hobbs, Fd Richard |
| description | The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses.
To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records.
Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure.
The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups was assessed.
A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age.
The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8049201</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2509605677</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a7aa945ed7be07f3c63c4f7e4b593846bb0e6fe7b7350c48e262823d639b2823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUU1v1DAQtSoQ3bZce0SWuHDJ4tiOHXNAgn4BagWH3i3Hmey6yjqL7VTsv6_dbivgNCO9D828h9BpTZaMKfXx64-rX0tKKFkS3ooDtKi5bKuGcvoKLYgSpKoFZ4foKMY7QigVNXmDDhlrKa8FXaD7GzBxDs6vcFoDttNmO8Ifl3Z4GvAKPAQz4m0wNjlbYB_nMZnk8vIJG3wO43btsPE9tmGKsYpgC5hFMc39DjuPL_xqdHGdXdzGhB22JsAJej2YMcLb_TxGt5cXt2ffquufV9_PvlxXlrc8VUYao3gDveyAyIFZwSwfJPCuUazlousIiAFkJ1lDsgSooC1lvWCqK8sx-vxku527DfQWfMr_6P0lejJO_4t4t9ar6V63hCtK6mzwYW8Qpt8zxKQ3LloYR-NhmqOmTcm4EVJm6vv_qHfTHHIShcWkUIIqllnLJ9ZjXAGGl2NqokujujSqS6O6NJoF7_5-4YX-XCF7AEJDnkw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2537696293</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Salisbury, Chris ; Lay-Flurrie, Sarah ; Bankhead, Clare R ; Fuller, Alice ; Murphy, Mairead ; Caddick, Barbara ; Ordóñez-Mena, José M ; Holt, Tim ; Nicholson, Brian D ; Perera, Rafael ; Hobbs, Fd Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Salisbury, Chris ; Lay-Flurrie, Sarah ; Bankhead, Clare R ; Fuller, Alice ; Murphy, Mairead ; Caddick, Barbara ; Ordóñez-Mena, José M ; Holt, Tim ; Nicholson, Brian D ; Perera, Rafael ; Hobbs, Fd Richard</creatorcontrib><description>The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses.
To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records.
Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure.
The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups was assessed.
A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age.
The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-1643</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-5242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33824162</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Royal College of General Practitioners</publisher><subject>Critical thinking ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Family physicians ; Family Practice ; Female ; General Practice ; Humans ; Male ; Medical appointments ; Medical records ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care ; Referral and Consultation ; Scope of practice</subject><ispartof>British journal of general practice, 2021-06, Vol.71 (707), p.e423-e431</ispartof><rights>The Authors.</rights><rights>Copyright Royal College of General Practitioners Jun 2021</rights><rights>The Authors 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a7aa945ed7be07f3c63c4f7e4b593846bb0e6fe7b7350c48e262823d639b2823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a7aa945ed7be07f3c63c4f7e4b593846bb0e6fe7b7350c48e262823d639b2823</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3550-2727 ; 0000-0003-0661-7362 ; 0000-0002-3032-0430 ; 0000-0002-1214-1682 ; 0000-0002-8965-104X ; 0000-0003-2418-2091 ; 0000-0003-1588-3849 ; 0000-0003-1094-8455 ; 0000-0001-7976-7172 ; 0000-0002-4378-3960</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8049201/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8049201/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33824162$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Salisbury, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lay-Flurrie, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bankhead, Clare R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuller, Alice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Mairead</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caddick, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ordóñez-Mena, José M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holt, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, Brian D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perera, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobbs, Fd Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care</title><title>British journal of general practice</title><addtitle>Br J Gen Pract</addtitle><description>The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses.
To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records.
Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure.
The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups was assessed.
A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age.
The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.</description><subject>Critical thinking</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Family physicians</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical appointments</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>Scope of practice</subject><issn>0960-1643</issn><issn>1478-5242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUU1v1DAQtSoQ3bZce0SWuHDJ4tiOHXNAgn4BagWH3i3Hmey6yjqL7VTsv6_dbivgNCO9D828h9BpTZaMKfXx64-rX0tKKFkS3ooDtKi5bKuGcvoKLYgSpKoFZ4foKMY7QigVNXmDDhlrKa8FXaD7GzBxDs6vcFoDttNmO8Ifl3Z4GvAKPAQz4m0wNjlbYB_nMZnk8vIJG3wO43btsPE9tmGKsYpgC5hFMc39DjuPL_xqdHGdXdzGhB22JsAJej2YMcLb_TxGt5cXt2ffquufV9_PvlxXlrc8VUYao3gDveyAyIFZwSwfJPCuUazlousIiAFkJ1lDsgSooC1lvWCqK8sx-vxku527DfQWfMr_6P0lejJO_4t4t9ar6V63hCtK6mzwYW8Qpt8zxKQ3LloYR-NhmqOmTcm4EVJm6vv_qHfTHHIShcWkUIIqllnLJ9ZjXAGGl2NqokujujSqS6O6NJoF7_5-4YX-XCF7AEJDnkw</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Salisbury, Chris</creator><creator>Lay-Flurrie, Sarah</creator><creator>Bankhead, Clare R</creator><creator>Fuller, Alice</creator><creator>Murphy, Mairead</creator><creator>Caddick, Barbara</creator><creator>Ordóñez-Mena, José M</creator><creator>Holt, Tim</creator><creator>Nicholson, Brian D</creator><creator>Perera, Rafael</creator><creator>Hobbs, Fd Richard</creator><general>Royal College of General Practitioners</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3550-2727</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-7362</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3032-0430</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1214-1682</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8965-104X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2418-2091</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1588-3849</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-8455</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7976-7172</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4378-3960</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care</title><author>Salisbury, Chris ; Lay-Flurrie, Sarah ; Bankhead, Clare R ; Fuller, Alice ; Murphy, Mairead ; Caddick, Barbara ; Ordóñez-Mena, José M ; Holt, Tim ; Nicholson, Brian D ; Perera, Rafael ; Hobbs, Fd Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a7aa945ed7be07f3c63c4f7e4b593846bb0e6fe7b7350c48e262823d639b2823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Critical thinking</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Family physicians</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical appointments</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>Scope of practice</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Salisbury, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lay-Flurrie, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bankhead, Clare R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuller, Alice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Mairead</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caddick, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ordóñez-Mena, José M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holt, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, Brian D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perera, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobbs, Fd Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of general practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Salisbury, Chris</au><au>Lay-Flurrie, Sarah</au><au>Bankhead, Clare R</au><au>Fuller, Alice</au><au>Murphy, Mairead</au><au>Caddick, Barbara</au><au>Ordóñez-Mena, José M</au><au>Holt, Tim</au><au>Nicholson, Brian D</au><au>Perera, Rafael</au><au>Hobbs, Fd Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care</atitle><jtitle>British journal of general practice</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Gen Pract</addtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>707</issue><spage>e423</spage><epage>e431</epage><pages>e423-e431</pages><issn>0960-1643</issn><eissn>1478-5242</eissn><abstract>The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and varies in different settings. A measure of complexity is required to test these hypotheses.
To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records.
Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by a cross-sectional study in English general practices to develop and validate a complexity measure.
The online Delphi study over two rounds identified potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of patients and general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/2014 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The authors explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed-effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/2018. The proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups was assessed.
A total of 32 GPs participated in the Delphi study. The Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators after two rounds. After excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained in the cross-sectional study. The study used data from 173 130 patients and 725 616 face-to-face GP consultations. On defining complexity as the presence of any of these 17 factors, 308 370 consultations (42.5%) were found to be complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in males and females but increased with age.
The present consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, and for informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Royal College of General Practitioners</pub><pmid>33824162</pmid><doi>10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3550-2727</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-7362</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3032-0430</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1214-1682</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8965-104X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2418-2091</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1588-3849</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-8455</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7976-7172</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4378-3960</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0960-1643 |
| ispartof | British journal of general practice, 2021-06, Vol.71 (707), p.e423-e431 |
| issn | 0960-1643 1478-5242 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8049201 |
| source | PubMed (Medline); MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Critical thinking Cross-Sectional Studies Family physicians Family Practice Female General Practice Humans Male Medical appointments Medical records Primary care Primary Health Care Referral and Consultation Scope of practice |
| title | Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: a Delphi and cross-sectional study in English primary care |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T20%3A03%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20the%20complexity%20of%20general%20practice%20consultations:%20a%20Delphi%20and%20cross-sectional%20study%20in%20English%20primary%20care&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20general%20practice&rft.au=Salisbury,%20Chris&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=707&rft.spage=e423&rft.epage=e431&rft.pages=e423-e431&rft.issn=0960-1643&rft.eissn=1478-5242&rft_id=info:doi/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2509605677%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2537696293&rft_id=info:pmid/33824162&rfr_iscdi=true |