Who visits primary health care general practitioners and why? A register-based study in a Finnish city.

This is a register-based study that examines the distribution of diagnoses made by general practitioners (GPs) in the public primary health care of the city of Vantaa, Finland. Data were gathered from the electronic health record (EHR) system and consisted of every record entered into the EHR system between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. Both absolute numbers and relative proportions of the 10th edition of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnosis recordings were reported and calculated. Among GP visits, the 88 most common diagnoses covered 75% of all diagnoses. The most common diagnoses were related to the musculoskeletal (3.8%, ICD code M54) and respiratory systems (6.0%, ICD-10 code J06). Primary health care GP services were mostly used by children (age <5 years) and older adults (>65 years). Health examinations - mostly children's and maternity clinics appointments/visits - covered 20% of the GP office visits. Women between the ages 15-79 years had relatively more GP visits compared to men. The 88 most commonly recorded diagnoses covered the majority of the GP visits. Health examinations for the healthy were an important part of GPs' work. In an urban Finnish city, GP services were predominantly used by children and older adults.

Comparison of two GP service provider models in older adults: a register-based follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: In Finland, there have been various strategies attempting to provide access to GPs. The 'restricted-List General Practitioner model' (rLGP) was launched in primary health care (PHC) in the city of Vantaa after the 'named General Practitioner model' (nGP) failed to provide sufficient access to GPs. This was done to improve access to GP appointments for those most needing care. AIM: To evaluate the impact of the transition from nGP to rLGP on access to non-urgent scheduled appointments among patients aged ≥75 years. DESIGN & SETTING: A register-based follow-up study in public PHC in Vantaa, Finland. METHOD: The study focused on patients aged ≥75 years who used PHC from 2004-2008. It looked at the number of non-urgent and urgent scheduled appointments, patient contacts, home visits, PHC emergency department appointments, and cancelled appointments, which were recorded 7 years before and after the transition from nGP to rLGP in 2011 and adjusted to patient-years. Non-urgent appointments were booked to the patient's own nGP or rLGP in public PHC, whereas urgent appointments could be to any GP. RESULTS: The number of non-urgent scheduled appointments to GPs was halved during the time of nGP, before launching the rLGP. Simultaneously, the number of urgent scheduled appointments more than tripled. The number of both started to plateau a year before the rLGP was launched. The number of both non-urgent and urgent scheduled appointments remained mainly at that level after rLGP was implemented. CONCLUSION: The rLGP model was unsuccessful in improving access to non-urgent scheduled appointments to GPs.