Search

ObjectiveTo describe the distribution of consultations at the practice level and examine whether increases are uniform or driven by people who consult more frequently.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingUK general practice data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database.Participants1 699 709 314 consultation events from 12 330 545 patients, in 845 general practices (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2019).MethodsConsultation information was aggregated by financial year into: all consultations/all staff; all consultations/general practitioners (GPs); face-to-face consultations/all staff; face-to-face consultations/GPs. Patients with a number of consultations above the 90th centile, within each year, were classified as frequent attenders. Negative binomial regressions examined the association between available practice characteristics and consultation distribution.ResultsAmong frequent attenders, all consultations by GPs increased from a median (25th and 75th centile) of 13 (10 and 16) to 21 (18 and 25) and all consultations by all staff increased from 27 (23–30) to 60 (51–69) over the study period. Approximately four out of ten consultations of any type concerned frequent attenders and the proportion of consultations attributed to them increased over time, particularly for face-to-face consultations with GPs, from a median of 38.0% (35.9%–40.3%) in 2000–2001 to 43.0% (40.6%–46.4%) in 2018–2019. Regression analyses indicated decreasing trends over time for face-to-face consultations and increasing trends for all consultation types, for both GPs and all staff. Frequent attenders consulted approximately five times more than the rest of the practice population, on average, with adjusted incidence rate ratios ranging between 4.992 (95% CI 4.917 to 5.068) for face-to-face consultations with all staff and 5.603 (95% CI 5.560 to 5.647) for all consultations with GPs.ConclusionsFrequent attenders progressively contributed to increased workload in general practices across the UK from 2000 to 2019. Important knowledge gaps remain in terms of the demographic, social and health characteristics of frequent attenders and how UK general practices can be prepared to meet the needs of these patients.

Objectives Little is known about the prevalence of comorbidity rates in people with severe mental illness (SMI) in UK primary care. We calculated the prevalence of SMI by UK country, English region and deprivation quintile, antipsychotic and antidepressant medication prescription rates for people with SMI, and prevalence rates of common comorbidities in people with SMI compared with people without SMI.\ud \ud Design Retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2012.\ud \ud Setting 627 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK primary care database.\ud \ud Participants Each identified case (346 551) was matched for age, sex and general practice with 5 randomly selected control cases (1 732 755) with no diagnosis of SMI in each yearly time point.\ud \ud Outcome measures Prevalence rates were calculated for 16 conditions.\ud \ud Results SMI rates were highest in Scotland and in more deprived areas. Rates increased in England, Wales and Northern Ireland over time, with the largest increase in Northern Ireland (0.48% in 2000/2001 to 0.69% in 2011/2012). Annual prevalence rates of all conditions were higher in people with SMI compared with those without SMI. The discrepancy between the prevalence of those with and without SMI increased over time for most conditions. A greater increase in the mean number of additional conditions was observed in the SMI population over the study period (0.6 in 2000/2001 to 1.0 in 2011/2012) compared with those without SMI (0.5 in 2000/2001 to 0.6 in 2011/2012). For both groups, most conditions were more prevalent in more deprived areas, whereas for the SMI group conditions such as hypothyroidism, chronic kidney disease and cancer were more prevalent in more affluent areas.\ud \ud Conclusions Our findings highlight the health inequalities faced by people with SMI. The provision of appropriate timely health prevention, promotion and monitoring activities to reduce these health inequalities are needed, especially in deprived areas.