Family Practice Advance Access published online on July 8, 2005
Family Practice, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi057
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 STaRNet, GKT Department of General Practice, Kings' College London, 5 Lambeth Walk, London SE11 6SP, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Background. There is a 7% discrepancy between English population estimates based on census figures and those based on the registered lists of GPs. GP income under the 2004 new contract will be based on registered patient populations but a national ‘de-ghosting’ exercise will ensue, aiming to eliminate list inflation. Objective. To derive an estimate of the variation in list inflation between individual general practices. Methods. Letters were sent to all mean aged 20-29 years and registered at practices based in three inner city Primary Care Trusts (n = 42 712). Non respondents received one further reminder. Cards were issued to each GP listing non responders. Patients were deducted from the GP list after six months if the GP did not verify the address. Results. 42 712 letters were sent. 33.5% of registered patients were eventually deducted from the GP list (deduction figures only available for 20-24 year old group). Practice level deduction rates ranged from 7-76%. Practices with higher deduction rates achieved lower vaccination rates for 2 year olds (Pearson's r = -0.25; P = 0.005) and cervical smear rates (Pearson's r = -0.18; P = 0.04); they also had cheaper prescribing costs per ASTRO-PU (Pearson's r = -0.20; P = 0.03). Conclusions. If these findings apply to the whole registered population, the national deghosting exercise is likely to result in large changes to the list size of some practices. Without correcting for list inflation, primary care research based on patient list size as the denominator may underestimate various measures of GP activity, particularly in deprived inner city areas. Resource allocation is also likely to be distorted by differences in list inflation.
Received October 21, 2004
Accepted May 27, 2005
Article
Which general practices have higher list inflation? An exploratory study
2 South East London Shared Services Partnership, Lower Marsh, London SE1 7EH, UK
3 South East London Strategic Health Authority, Lower Marsh, London SE1 7EH, UK
4 Prescribing Support Unit, Leeds LS2 7RJ, UK
5 Department of Primary Care & Social Medicine, Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, London W6 8RP, UK
Mark Ashworth, E-mail: mark.ashworth{at}gp-G85053.nhs.uk
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N S Crowcroft Action on immunisation: no data, no action Arch. Dis. Child., November 1, 2009; 94(11): 829 - 830. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Connolly and D. O'Reilly Variation in care home admission across areas of Northern Ireland Age Ageing, July 1, 2009; 38(4): 461 - 465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Moser, J. Patnick, and V. Beral Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data BMJ, June 16, 2009; 338(jun16_2): b2025 - b2025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|