Free Children's Visits and General Practice Attendance.

PURPOSE: In July 2015, all children aged younger than 6 years gained free access to daytime and out-of-hours general practice services in the Republic of Ireland. Although 30% previously had free access, 70% did not. METHODS: To examine subsequent changes in service use, we retrospectively analyzed anonymized visitation data from 8 general practices in North Dublin providing daytime service and their local out-of-hours service, comparing the 1 year before and the 1 year after introduction of free care. RESULTS: In the year after granting of free general practice care for children younger than 6 years, 9.4% more children attended the daytime services and 20.1% more children were seen in the out-of-hours services. Annual number of visits by patients increased by 28.7% for daytime services and by 25.7% for out-of-hours services, translating to 6,682 more visits overall. Average visitation rate for children this age increased from 2.77 visits per year to 3.25 visits per year for daytime services, but changed little for out-of-hours services, from 1.52 visits per year to 1.59 visits per year. CONCLUSIONS: Offering free childhood general practice services led to a dramatic increase in visits. This increase has implications for future health care service planning in mixed public and privately funded systems.

Health Care Utilisation by Bullying Victims: A Cross-Sectional Study of A 9-Year-Old Cohort in Ireland.

Children frequently refrain from disclosing being bullied. Early identification of bullying by healthcare professionals in children may prevent adverse health consequences. The aim of our study was to determine whether Health Care Utilisation (HCU) is higher in 9-year-olds who report being bullied and factors influencing type of HCU. The study consists of cross-sectional surveys of Child Cohort of Irish National Longitudinal Study of Children (Wave 1), 8,568 9-year-olds, and their carers. Being bullied was assessed by a self-reported questionnaire completed by children at home. HCU outcomes consisted of the following: visits to GP, Mental Health Practitioner (MHP), Emergency Department (ED), and nights in hospital by parent interview. Bivariate logistic regression and gender-stratified Poisson models were used to determine association. Victimisation by bullying independently increased visits to GP (OR 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03 to 1.25; p = 0.02), MHP (OR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.63; p = 0.02), though not ED visits (OR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.13; p = 0.8) or nights in hospital (OR 1.07 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.18; p = 0.2), adjusting for underlying chronic condition(s) and socio-demographic confounders. Victimised girls made higher GP visits (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.23; p < 0.001) and spent more nights in hospital (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.15; p < 0.001). Victimised boys were more likely to contact MHPs (RR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.44; p = 0.03). 9-year-old bullied subjects were more likely to utilise primary care services than non-bullied 9-year-olds. Different HCU patterns were observed according to gender and gender differences in the presentation of victimisation. Our findings may lead to the development of clinical practice guidelines for early detection and appropriate management of bullied children.

Out-of-hours co-operatives: general practitioner satisfaction with governance and working arrangements.

OBJECTIVE: General practice co-operatives have led to significant improvements in quality of life for general practitioners. Little is known about general practitioners' own experiences with the working arrangements and governance of co-operatives. This study investigates GP satisfaction, the working environment, governance and future developments in co-operatives. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to GPs in two co-operatives in the Republic of Ireland, covering mixed urban and rural areas. RESULTS: Of 221 GPs in the co-operatives, 82% responded and confirmed the co-operatives' positive effects on their lives. However, 57% still received requests for out-of-hours care while off duty, most commonly from patients who preferred to see their own doctor. Half felt overburdened by out-of-hours work, especially those over 40 y of age. Twenty-five per cent were dissatisfied with the GP complaints mechanism. The majority (63%) would prefer a GP/health board partnership for the organization of out of hours, while 23% wanted sole responsibility. GPs indicated a strong need for better ancillary services such as nursing, mental health, dentistry, pharmacy and social work. Access to records is an important issue in terminal care and mental illness. CONCLUSION: While GP co-operatives are a success story for general practice, they will work better for general practitioners and their patients if nursing, mental health, dentistry, pharmacy and social services are improved. Support and training is needed in mental health, palliative and emergency care to increase competence and reduce stress. GPs are willing to work with health authorities in further co-operative development. More attention needs to be paid to the complaints and suggestions of GPs in the running and governance of their co-operatives.

Understanding type 2 diabetes: including the family member's perspective.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between psychological and social factors and diabetes outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and their family members. METHODS: A total of 153 patients with type 2 diabetes were assessed at a diabetes outpatient clinic and postal questionnaires were sent to nominated family members. The measures examined were diabetes knowledge, social support, well-being, and illness perceptions. RESULTS: When compared with those with diabetes, family members reported lower positive well-being and lower levels of satisfaction with support. They also perceived diabetes as a more cyclical illness, which was controlled more by treatment than by the individual. Family members also reported that the person with diabetes was more emotionally distressed and knew more about diabetes than the patient had actually reported himself or herself. There were no differences between the family members of those in good or poor glycaemic control. CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces the importance of understanding social context and illness beliefs in diabetes management. It also highlights the potential for including family members in discussions and education about diabetes management.