Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-health) 2.0: from a scoring instrument to a critical appraisal tool.

BACKGROUND: Statistics are frequently used in health advocacy to attract attention, but are often misinterpreted. The Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) 1.0 was developed to support systematic assessment of the interpretation of figures on health and health care. This study aimed to test and evaluate the FIAT-Health 1.0 amongst its intended user groups, and further refine the tool based on our results. METHODS: Potential users (N = 32) were asked to assess one publicly reported figure using the FIAT-Health 1.0, and to justify their assessments and share their experience in using the FIAT-Health. In total four figures were assessed. For each figure, an expert on the specific topic (N = 4) provided a comparative assessment. The consistency of the answers was calculated, and answers to the evaluation questions were qualitatively analysed. A qualitative comparative analysis of the justifications for assessment by the experts and potential users was made. Based on the results, a new version of the FIAT-Health was developed and tested by employees (N = 27) of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and approved by the project's advisory group. In total sixty-three participants contributed. RESULTS: Potential users using the FIAT-Health 1.0 and experts gave similar justifications for their assessments. The justifications provided by experts aligned with the items of the FIAT-Health. Seventeen out of twenty-six dichotomous questions were consistently answered by the potential users. Numerical assessment questions showed inconsistencies in how potential users responded. In the evaluation, potential users most frequently mentioned that thanks to its structured approach, the FIAT-Health contributed to their awareness of the main characteristics of the figure (n = 14), but they did find the tool complex (n = 11). The FIAT-Health 1.0 was revised from a scoring instrument into a critical appraisal tool: the FIAT-Health 2.0, which was tested and approved by employees of the RIVM and the advisory group. CONCLUSION: The tool was refined according to the results of the test and evaluation, transforming the FIAT-Health from a quantitative scoring instrument into an online qualitative appraisal tool that has the potential to aid the better interpretation and public reporting of statistics on health and healthcare.

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The notion of 'fact-free politics' is debated in Europe and the United States of America and has particular relevance for the use of evidence to underpin health and healthcare policies. To better understand how evidence on health and healthcare is used in the national policy-making process in the Netherlands, we explore how different statistics are used in various policy debates on health and healthcare in the Dutch government and parliament. METHODS: We chose eight ongoing policy debates as case studies representing the subject categories of morbidity, lifestyle, healthcare expenditure and healthcare outcomes, including (1) breast cancer screening rates, prevalence and incidence, (2) dementia prevalence and incidence, (3) prevalence of alcohol use by pregnant women, (4) mobility and school sports participation in children, (5) costs of smoking, (6) Dutch national healthcare expenditure, (7) hospital mortality rates, and (8) bedsore prevalence. Using selected keywords for each policy debate case, we performed a document search to identify documentation of the debates (2014-2016) on the websites of the Dutch government and parliament. We retrieved 163 documents and examined the policy debate cases through a content analyses approach. RESULTS: Sources of the statistics used in policy debates were primarily government funded. We identified two distinct functions, i.e. rhetorical and managerial use of statistics. The function of the debate is rhetorical when the specific statistic is used for agenda-setting or to convince the reader of the importance of a topic. The function of the debate is managerial when statistics determine planning, monitoring or evaluation of policy. When evaluating a specific policy, applied statistics were mostly the result of routine or standardised data collection. When policy-makers use statistics for a managerial function, the policy debate mirrors terms derived from scientific debates. CONCLUSION: While statistics used for rhetorical functions do not seem to invite critical reflection, when the function of the debate is managerial, i.e. to plan, monitor or evaluate healthcare, their construction does receive attention. Considering the current role of statistics in rhetorical and managerial debates, there is a need to be cautious of too much leniency towards the technocratic process in exchange for the democratic debate.

Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Explore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands. DESIGN: In a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016. SETTING: Netherlands, 2016. SAMPLE: 116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design. RESULTS: We identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design. CONCLUSIONS: Given the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.

Are people's health care needs better met when primary care is strong? A synthesis of the results of the QUALICOPC study in 34 countries.

AIM: This article synthesises the results of a large international study on primary care (PC), the QUALICOPC study. BACKGROUND: Since the Alma Ata Declaration, strengthening PC has been high on the policy agenda. PC is associated with positive health outcomes, but it is unclear how care processes and structures relate to patient experiences. METHODS: Survey data were collected during 2011-2013 from approximately 7000 PC physicians and 70 000 patients in 34, mainly European, countries. The data on the patients are linked to data on the PC physicians within each country and analysed using multilevel modelling. FINDINGS: Patients had more positive experiences when their PC physician provided a broader range of services. However, a broader range of services is also associated with higher rates of hospitalisations for uncontrolled diabetes, but rates of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalisations were lower in countries where patients had a continuous relationship with PC physicians. Additionally, patients with a long-term relationship with their PC physician were less likely to attend the emergency department. Capitation payment was associated with more positive patient experiences. Mono- and multidisciplinary co-location was related to improved processes in PC, but the experiences of patients visiting multidisciplinary practices were less positive. A stronger national PC structure and higher overall health care expenditures are related to more favourable patient experiences for continuity and comprehensiveness. The study also revealed inequities: patients with a migration background reported less positive experiences. People with lower incomes more often postponed PC visits for financial reasons. Comprehensive and accessible care processes are related to less postponement of care. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed room for improvement related to patient-reported experiences and highlighted the importance of core PC characteristics including a continuous doctor-patient relationship as well as a broad range of services offered by PC physicians.

Shared decision making between patient and GP about referrals from primary care: Does gatekeeping make a difference?

Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool (FIAT-Health).

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public are confronted daily with figures on health and healthcare through public reporting in newspapers, webpages and press releases. However, information on the key characteristics of these figures necessary for their correct interpretation is often not adequately communicated, which can lead to misinterpretation and misinformed decision-making. The objective of this research was to map the key characteristics relevant to the interpretation of figures on health and healthcare, and to develop a Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) through which figures on health and healthcare can be systematically assessed, allowing for a better interpretation of these figures. METHODS: The abovementioned key characteristics of figures on health and healthcare were identified through systematic expert consultations in the Netherlands on four topic categories of figures, namely morbidity, healthcare expenditure, healthcare outcomes and lifestyle. The identified characteristics were used as a frame for the development of the FIAT-Health. Development of the tool and its content was supported and validated through regular review by a sounding board of potential users. RESULTS: Identified characteristics relevant for the interpretation of figures in the four categories relate to the figures' origin, credibility, expression, subject matter, population and geographical focus, time period, and underlying data collection methods. The characteristics were translated into a set of 13 dichotomous and 4-point Likert scale questions constituting the FIAT-Health, and two final assessment statements. Users of the FIAT-Health were provided with a summary overview of their answers to support a final assessment of the correctness of a figure and the appropriateness of its reporting. CONCLUSIONS: FIAT-Health can support policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public to systematically assess the quality of publicly reported figures on health and healthcare. It also has the potential to support the producers of health and healthcare data in clearly communicating their data to different audiences. Future research should focus on the further validation of the tool in practice.

Cost Variation in Diabetes Care across Dutch Care Groups?

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of bundled payment for diabetes care in the Netherlands led to the origination of care groups. This study explored to what extent variation in health care costs per patient can be attributed to the performance of care groups. Furthermore, the commonly applied simple mean aggregation was compared with the more advanced generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to benchmark health care costs per patient between care groups. DATA SOURCE: Dutch 2009 nationwide insurance claims data of diabetes type 2 patients (104,544 patients, 50 care groups). STUDY DESIGN: Both a simple mean aggregation and a GLMM approach was applied to rank care groups, using two different health care costs variables: total treatment health care costs and diabetes-specific specialist care costs per diabetes patient. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Care groups varied slightly in the first and mainly in the second indicator. Care group variation was not explained by composition. Although the ranking methods were correlated, some care groups' rank positions differed, with consequences on the top-10 and the low-10 positions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between care groups exist when an appropriate indicator and a sophisticated aggregation technique is used. Currently applied benchmarking may have unfair consequences for some care groups.

Trends towards stronger primary care in three western European countries; 2006-2012.

BACKGROUND: Strong primary care systems are believed to have an important role in dealing with healthcare challenges. Strengthening primary care systems is therefore a common policy goal for many countries. This study aims to investigate whether the Netherlands, the UK and Germany have strengthened their primary care systems in 2006-2012. METHOD: For this cross-sectional study, data from the International Health Policy surveys of the Commonwealth Fund in 2006, 2009 and 2012 were used. The surveys represent the experiences and perspectives of primary care physicians with their primary care system. The changes over time were researched in three areas: organization of primary care processes, use of IT in primary care and use of benchmarking and financial incentives for performance improvement. RESULTS: Regarding organization of primary care processes, in all countries the use of supporting personnel in general practice increased, but at the same time practice accessibility decreased. IT services were most advanced in the UK. The UK and the Netherlands showed increased use of performance feedback information. German GPs were least satisfied with how their system works across the 2006-2012 timeframe. CONCLUSION: All three countries show trends towards stronger primary care systems, although in different areas. Coordination and comprehensive care through the assignment of assisting personnel and use of disease management programs improved in all countries. In the Netherlands and the UK, informational continuity is in part ensured through better IT services. All countries showed increasing difficulties upholding primary care accessibility.

Reporting and use of the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators at national and regional level in 15 countries.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE: OECD member states are involved since 2003 in a project coordinated by the OECD on Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI). All OECD countries are biennially requested by the OECD to deliver national data on the quality indicators for international benchmarking purposes. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: Currently, there is no knowledge whether the OECD HCQI information is used by the countries themselves for healthcare system accountability and improvement purposes. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: The objective of the study is to explore the reporting and use of OECD HCQI in OECD member-states. IMPLEMENTATION: Data were collected through a questionnaire sent to all OECD member-states containing factual questions on the reporting on all OECD HCQ-indicators. Responses were received between June and December 2014. In this timeframe, two reminders were sent to the participants. The work progress was presented during HCQI Meetings in November 2014 and May 2015. EVALUATION: Fifteen countries reported to have a total of 163 reports in which one or more HCQIs were reported. One hundred and sixteen were national and 47 were regional reports. Forty-nine reports had a general system focus, 80 were disease specific, 10 referred to a specific type of care setting, 22 were thematic and 2 were a combination of two (disease specific for a particular type of care and thematic for a specific type of care). Most reports were from Canada: 49. All 15 countries use one or more OECD indicators. LESSONS LEARNED: The OECD quality indicators have acquired a clear place in national and regional monitoring activities. Some indicators are reported more often than others. These differences partly reflect differences between healthcare systems. Whereas some indicators have become very common, such as cancer care indicators, others, such as mental healthcare and patient experience indicators are relatively new and require some more time to be adopted more widely.

Accessible and continuous primary care may help reduce rates of emergency department use. An international survey in 34 countries.

BACKGROUND: Part of the visits to emergency departments (EDs) is related to complaints that may well be treated in primary care. OBJECTIVES: (i) To investigate how the likelihood of attending an ED is related to accessibility and continuity of primary care. (ii) To investigate the reasons for patients to visit EDs in different countries. METHODS: Data were collected within the EU Seventh Framework project Quality and Costs in Primary Care (QUALICOPC) in 31 European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The data were collected between 2011 and 2013 and contain survey data from 60991 patients and 7005 GPs, within 7005 general practices. OUTCOME MEASURE: whether the patient visited the ED in the previous year (yes/no). Multilevel logistic regression analyses were carried out to analyse the data. RESULTS: Some 29.4% had visited the ED in the past year. Between countries, the percentages varied between 18% and 40%. ED visits show a significant and negative relation with better accessibility of primary care. Patients with a regular doctor who knows them personally were less likely to attend EDs. Only one-third of all patients who visited an ED indicated that the main reason for this was that their complaint could not be treated by a GP. CONCLUSIONS: Good accessibility and continuity of primary care may well reduce ED use. In some countries, it may be worthwhile to invest in more continuous relationships between patients and GPs or to eliminate factors that hamper people to use primary care (e.g. for costs or travelling).

Incorporating shared savings programs into primary care: from theory to practice.

BACKGROUND: In several countries, health care policies gear toward strengthening the position of primary care physicians. Primary care physicians are increasingly expected to take accountability for overall spending and quality. Yet traditional models of paying physicians do not provide adequate incentives for taking on this new role. Under a so-called shared savings program physicians are instead incentivized to take accountability for spending and quality, as the program lets them share in cost savings when quality targets are met. We provide a structured approach to designing a shared savings program for primary care, and apply this approach to the design of a shared savings program for a Dutch chain of primary care providers, which is currently being piloted. METHODS: Based on the literature, we defined five building blocks of shared savings models that encompass the definition of the scope of the program, the calculation of health care expenditures, the construction of a savings benchmark, the assessment of savings and the rules and conditions under which savings are shared. We apply insights from a variety of literatures to assess the relative merits of alternative design choices within these building blocks. The shared savings program uses an econometric model of provider expenditures as an input to calculating a casemix-corrected benchmark. RESULTS: The minimization of risk and uncertainty for both payer and provider is pertinent to the design of a shared savings program. In that respect, the primary care setting provides a number of unique opportunities for achieving cost and quality targets. Accountability can more readily be assumed due to the relatively long-lasting relationships between primary care physicians and patients. A stable population furthermore improves the confidence with which savings can be attributed to changes in population management. Challenges arise from the institutional context. The Dutch health care system has a fragmented structure and providers are typically small in size. CONCLUSION: Shared savings programs fit the concept of enhanced primary care. Incorporating a shared savings program into existing payment models could therefore contribute to the financial sustainability of this organizational form.

The Dutch Health Care Performance Report: seven years of health care performance assessment in the Netherlands.

In 2006, the first edition of a monitoring tool for the performance of the Dutch health care system was released: the Dutch Health Care Performance Report (DHCPR). The Netherlands was among the first countries in the world developing such a comprehensive tool for reporting performance on quality, access, and affordability of health care. The tool contains 125 performance indicators; the choice for specific indicators resulted from a dialogue between researchers and policy makers. In the 'policy cycle', the DHCPR can rationally be placed between evaluation (accountability) and agenda-setting (for strategic decision making). In this paper, we reflect on important lessons learned after seven years of health care system performance assessment. These lessons entail the importance of a good conceptual framework for health system performance assessment, the importance of repeated measurement, the strength of combining multiple perspectives (e.g., patient, professional, objective, subjective) on the same issue, the importance of a central role for the patients' perspective in performance assessment, how to deal with the absence of data in relevant domains, the value of international benchmarking and the continuous exchange between researchers and policy makers.

Accountable Care Organizations: how to dress for success.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) need to reconsider their provider configuration and make it capable of managing clinical and financial risk. To that aim, their management must decide which medical procedures are done by the ACO itself, and which are contracted out to market providers. Making this decision requires a balanced treatment of market and firm organization, recognizing that each has properties that can turn into relative strengths. Such a balanced treatment is lacking in the ACO debate. Using the transaction cost theory, we provide such a balanced treatment of market and firm organization, and discuss implications for the design of ACOs and accountable care initiatives in general.

Measures of quality, costs and equity in primary health care instruments developed to analyse and compare primary care in 35 countries.

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study aims to analyse and compare how primary health care systems in 35 countries perform in terms of quality, costs and equity. This article answers the question 'How can the organisation and delivery of primary health care and its outcomes be measured through surveys of general practitioners (GPs) and patients?' It will also deal with the process of pooling questions and the subsequent development and application of exclusion criteria to arrive at a set of appropriate questions for a broad international comparative study. METHODS: The development of the questionnaires consisted of four phases: a search for existing validated questionnaires, the classification and selection of relevant questions, shortening of the questionnaires in three consensus rounds and the pilot survey. Consensus was reached on the basis of exclusion criteria (e.g. the applicability for international comparison). Based on the pilot survey, comprehensibility increased and the number of questions was further restricted, as the questionnaires were too long. RESULTS: Four questionnaires were developed: one for GPs, one for patients about their experiences with their GP, another for patients about what they consider important, and a practice questionnaire. The GP questionnaire mainly focused on the structural aspects (e.g. economic conditions) and care processes (e.g. comprehensiveness of services of primary care). The patient experiences questionnaire focused on the care processes and outcomes (e.g. how do patients experience access to care?). The questionnaire about what patients consider important was complementary to the experiences questionnaire, as it enabled weighing the answers from the latter. Finally, the practice questionnaire included questions on practice characteristics. DISCUSSION: The QUALICOPC researchers have developed four questionnaires to characterise the organisation and delivery of primary health care and to compare and analyse the outcomes. Data collected with these instruments will allow us not only to show in detail the variation in process and outcomes of primary health care, but also to explain the differences from features of the (primary) health care system.

Impact of remuneration on guideline adherence: empirical evidence in general practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Changes in the Dutch GP remuneration system provided the opportunity to study the effects of changes in financial incentives on the quality of care. Separate remuneration systems for publicly insured patients (capitation) and privately insured patients (fee-for-service) were replaced by a combined system of capitation and fee-for-service for all in 2006. The effects of these changes on the quality of care in terms of guideline adherence were investigated. DESIGN AND SETTING: A longitudinal study from 2002 to 2009 using data from patient electronic medical records in general practice. A multilevel (patient and practice) approach was applied to study the effect of changes in the remuneration system on guideline adherence. SUBJECTS: 21 421 to 39 828 patients from 32 to 52 general practices (dynamic panel of GPs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sixteen guideline adherence indicators on prescriptions and referrals for acute and chronic conditions. RESULTS: Guideline adherence increased between 2002 and 2008 by 7% for (formerly) publicly insured patients and 10% for (formerly) privately insured patients. In general, no significant differences in the trends for guideline adherence were found between privately and publicly insured patients, indicating the absence of an effect of the remuneration system on guideline adherence. Adherence to guidelines involving more time investment in terms of follow-up contacts was affected by changes in the remuneration system. For publicly insured patients, GPs showed a higher trend for guideline adherence for guidelines involving more time investment in terms of follow-up contacts compared with privately insured patients. CONCLUSION: The change in the remuneration system had a limited impact on guideline adherence.

QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe) study aims to evaluate the performance of primary care systems in Europe in terms of quality, equity and costs. The study will provide an answer to the question what strong primary care systems entail and which effects primary care systems have on the performance of health care systems. QUALICOPC is funded by the European Commission under the "Seventh Framework Programme". In this article the background and design of the QUALICOPC study is described. METHODS/DESIGN: QUALICOPC started in 2010 and will run until 2013. Data will be collected in 31 European countries (27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey) and in Australia, Israel and New Zealand. This study uses a three level approach of data collection: the system, practice and patient. Surveys will be held among general practitioners (GPs) and their patients, providing evidence at the process and outcome level of primary care. These surveys aim to gain insight in the professional behaviour of GPs and the expectations and actions of their patients. An important aspect of this study is that each patient's questionnaire can be linked to their own GP's questionnaire. To gather data at the structure or national level, the study will use existing data sources such as the System of Health Accounts and the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor Europe (PHAMEU) database. Analyses of the data will be performed using multilevel models. DISCUSSION: By its design, in which different data sources are combined for comprehensive analyses, QUALICOPC will advance the state of the art in primary care research and contribute to the discussion on the merit of strengthening primary care systems and to evidence based health policy development.

Do list size and remuneration affect GPs' decisions about how they provide consultations?

BACKGROUND: Doctors' professional behaviour is influenced by the way they are paid. When GPs are paid per item, i.e., on a fee-for-service basis (FFS), there is a clear relationship between workload and income: more work means more money. In the case of capitation based payment, workload is not directly linked to income since the fees per patient are fixed. In this study list size was considered as an indicator for workload and we investigated how list size and remuneration affect GP decisions about how they provide consultations. The main objectives of this study were to investigate a) how list size is related to consultation length, waiting time to get an appointment, and the likelihood that GPs conduct home visits and b) to what extent the relationships between list size and these three variables are affected by remuneration. METHODS: List size was used because this is an important determinant of objective workload. List size was corrected for number of older patients and patients who lived in deprived areas. We focussed on three dependent variables that we expected to be related to remuneration and list size: consultation length; waiting time to get an appointment; and home visits. Data were derived from the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2), carried out between 2000 and 2002. The data were collected using electronic medical records, videotaped consultations and postal surveys. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to assess the hypothesized relationships. RESULTS: Our results indicate that list size is negatively related to consultation length, especially among GPs with relatively large lists. A correlation between list size and waiting time to get an appointment, and a correlation between list size and the likelihood of a home visit were only found for GPs with small practices. These correlations are modified by the proportion of patients for whom GPs receive capitation fees. Waiting times to get an appointment tend to become shorter with increasing patient lists when there is a larger capitation percentage. The likelihood that GPs will conduct home visit rises with increasing patient lists when the capitation percentage is small. CONCLUSION: Remuneration appears to affect GPs' decisions about how they provide consultations, especially among GPs with relatively small patient lists. This role is, however, small compared to other factors such as patient characteristics.

Changing patterns of home visiting in general practice: an analysis of electronic medical records.

BACKGROUND: In most European countries and North America the number of home visits carried out by GPs has been decreasing sharply. This has been influenced by non-medical factors such as mobility and pressures on time. The objective of this study was to investigate changes in home visiting rates, looking at the level of diagnoses in 1987 and in 2001. METHODS: We analysed routinely collected data on diagnoses in home visits and surgery consultations from electronic medical records by general practitioners. Data were used from 246,738 contacts among 124,791 patients in 103 practices in 1987, and 77,167 contacts among 58,345 patients in 80 practices in 2001. There were 246 diagnoses used. The main outcome measure was the proportion of home visits per diagnosis in 2001. RESULTS: Within the period studied, the proportion of home visits decreased strongly. The size of this decrease varied across diagnoses. The relation between the proportion of home visits for a diagnosis in 1987 and the same proportion in 2001 is curvilinear (J-shaped), indicating that the decrease is weaker at the extreme points and stronger in the middle. CONCLUSION: By comparison with 1987, the proportion of home visits shows a distinct decline. However, the results show that this decline is not necessarily a problem. The finding that this decline varied mainly between diagnoses for which home visits are not always urgent, shows that medical considerations still play an important role in the decision about whether or not to carry out a home visit.