Epidemiology of frequent attenders: a 3-year historic cohort study comparing attendance, morbidity and prescriptions of one-year and persistent frequent attenders.

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners spend a disproportionate amount of time on frequent attenders. So far, trials on the effect of interventions on frequent attenders have shown negative results. However, these trials were conducted in short-term frequent attenders. It would be more reasonable to target intervention at persistent frequent attenders. Typical characteristics of persistent frequent attenders, as opposed to 1-year frequent attenders and non-frequent attenders, may generate hypotheses regarding modifiable factors on which new randomized trials may be designed. METHODS: We used the data of all 28,860 adult patients from 5 primary healthcare centers. Frequent attenders were patients whose attendance rate ranked in the (age and sex adjusted) top 10 percent during 1 year (1-year frequent attenders) or 3 years (persistent frequent attenders). All other patients on the register over the 3-year period were referred to as non-frequent attenders. The lists of medical problems coded by the GP using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) were used to assess morbidity.First, we determined which proportion of 1-year frequent attenders was still a frequent attender during the next two consecutive years and calculated the GPs' workload for these patients. Second, we compared morbidity and number of prescriptions for non-frequent attenders, 1-year frequent attenders and persistent frequent attenders. RESULTS: Of all 1-year frequent attenders, 15.4% became a persistent frequent attender equal to 1.6% of all patients. The 1-year frequent attenders (3,045; 10.6%) were responsible for 39% of the face-to-face consultations; the 470 patients who would become persistent frequent attenders (1.6%) were responsible for 8% of all consultations in 2003. Persistent frequent attenders presented more social problems, more psychiatric problems and medically unexplained physical symptoms, but also more chronic somatic diseases (especially diabetes). They received more prescriptions for psychotropic medication. CONCLUSION: One out of every seven 1-year-frequent attenders (15.4%) becomes a persistent frequent attender. Compared with non-frequent attenders, and 1-year frequent attenders, persistent frequent attenders consume more health care and are diagnosed not only with more somatic diseases but especially more social problems, psychiatric problems and medically unexplained physical symptoms.

Interventions on frequent attenders in primary care. A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse which interventions are effective in influencing morbidity, quality of life, and healthcare utilization of frequently attending patients (FAs) in primary care. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for articles describing interventions on FAs in primary care (Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO). Outcomes were morbidity, quality of life (QoL), and use of healthcare. Two independent assessors selected all randomized clinical trials (RCT) and assessed the quality of the selected RCTs. Results. Five primary care based RCTs were identified. Three RCTs used frequent attendance to select patients at risk of distress, major depression, and anxiety disorders. These RCTs applied psychological and psychiatric interventions and focused on undiagnosed psychiatric morbidity of FAs. Two of them found more depression-free days and a better QoL after treating major depressive disorder in FAs. No other RCT found any positive effect on morbidity or QoL. Two RCTs studied an intervention which focused on reducing frequent attendance. No intervention significantly lowered attendance. Due to the difference in study settings and the variation in methods of selecting patients, meta-analysis of the results was not possible. CONCLUSION: No study showed convincing evidence that an intervention improves QoL or morbidity of frequent attending primary care patients, although a small effect might be possible in a subgroup of depressed frequent attenders. No evidence was found that it is possible to influence healthcare utilization of FAs.