Search

Objectives: The relationship between patient feedback in the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections of practices was investigated to understand whether there is an association between patient views and regulator ratings of quality. The specific aims were to understand whether patients' self-reported experiences of primary care can predict CQC inspection ratings of GP practices by: (i) Measuring the association between GPPS results and CQC inspection ratings of GP practices; (ii) Building a predictive model of GP practice quality ratings that use GPPS results; and (iii) Evaluating the predictive model for risk stratification., Design: Retrospective analysis of routinely collected data using decision tree modelling., Setting: Primary care: GP practices in England., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: GPPS scores and GP practice CQC inspection ratings during 2018., Results: Most GP practices (72%, 974/1350) were rated as 'Good' overall by CQC. Simply assuming that all practices will be rated as 'Good' results in a correct prediction 72% of the time, and it was not possible to improve on this overall level of predictive accuracy using decision tree modelling (correct in 73% of cases). However, a set of GPPS questions were found to have value in identifying practices at elevated risk of a poor inspection rating., Conclusions: Although there were some associations between GPPS data and CQC inspection ratings, there were limitations to the use of GPPS data for predictive analysis. This is a likely result of the majority of CQC inspections of GPs resulting in a 'Good' or 'Outstanding' rating. However, some GPPS questions were found to have value in identifying practices at higher risk of an 'Inadequate' or 'Requires Improvement' rating, and this may be valuable for surveillance purposes. For example, the CQC could use key questions from the survey to target inspection planning., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Fifteen percent of GP consultations are for dermatological conditions; 4% of these are referred to a dermatologist. There are long waiting lists for dermatology appointments. This study examines the value of instant photography in managing dermatology referrals., Objective: The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes of referral for dermatology appointments between patients whose referral letters do or do not include instant photograph(s)., Methods: Patients (136), referred to a dermatologist by GPs in two urban health centres, were randomly allocated to study and control groups. Instant photographs, taken by the GP, were included in the referral letters. Control group patients were given out-patient appointments in the usual way. The numbers of study group patients needing an appointment for diagnosis or management and with a changed diagnosis after face-to-face consultation were recorded. Waiting time from referral to appointment or management plan was recorded for both groups., Results: For 63% of the study group (45/71), a diagnosis and a management plan were made without the patient requiring an appointment. This included 38% (27/71) who, after diagnosis and initial management, needed an appointment and 25% (18/71) who did not. The remainder of the study group (37%; 26/71) required a face-to-face consultation. The mean time for formulation of a management plan for patients without an appointment was 17 days (SD = 11); waiting times for appointments in study and control groups were similar (mean 55 days; SD = 40)., Conclusions: Instant photography is helpful in managing dermatology referrals and offers the potential to reduce numbers requiring an out-patient appointment by 25%.

The objective of this multicentre study was to undertake a systematic comparison of face-to-face consultations and teleconsultations performed using low-cost videoconferencing equipment. One hundred and twenty-six patients were enrolled by their general practitioners across three sites. Each patient underwent a teleconsultation with a distant dermatologist followed by a traditional face-to-face consultation with a dermatologist. The main outcome measures were diagnostic concordance rates, management plans and patient and doctor satisfaction. One hundred and fifty-five diagnoses were identified by the face-to-face consultations from the sample of 126 patients. Identical diagnoses were recorded from both types of consultation in 59% of cases. Teledermatology consultations missed a secondary diagnosis in 6% of cases and were unable to make a useful diagnosis in 11% of cases. Wrong diagnoses were made by the teledermatologist in 4% of cases. Dermatologists were able to make a definitive diagnosis by face-to-face consultations in significantly more cases than by teleconsultations (P = 0.001). Where both types of consultation resulted in a single diagnosis there was a high level of agreement (kappa = 0.96, lower 95% confidence limit 0.91-1.00). Overall follow-up rates from both types of consultation were almost identical. Fifty per cent of patients seen could have been managed using a single videoconferenced teleconsultation without any requirement for further specialist intervention. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the teleconsultations. General practitioners reported that 75% of the teleconsultations were of educational benefit. This study illustrates the potential of telemedicine to diagnose and manage dermatology cases referred from primary care. Once the problem of image quality has been addressed, further studies will be required to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a teledermatology service and the potential consequences for the provision of dermatological services in the U.K.