Abstract
BACKGROUND. Training practices are more developed than non-training practices in terms of a wide range of educational and clinical activities, facilities and staff. If training practices are also adopting new innovations at a faster rate than non-training practices the gap between them will increase. AIM. The aim of this study was to determine whether, between 1982 and 1990, training practices did develop at a faster rate than non-training practices. METHOD. In 1982 a questionnaire was sent to 153 practices in Gloucestershire, Avon and Somerset which all had one or more partners who were members of the Royal College of General Practitioners. A second questionnaire was sent to the same practices in 1990. Information was sought about practice features including organization, size, facilities, staff and clinical and educational activities. A total of 124 practices (62 training and non-training) completed questionnaires on both occasions. RESULTS. There were substantial changes in the cohort between the surveys in 1982 and 1990, with many practices gaining, for example, a practice manager, practice nurse and purpose built premises, and introducing audits, screening activities and specific clinics. For each feature of practice a logistic regression was undertaken with training used as an explanatory variable. Training practices were more likely to develop than non-training practices for a number of features including personnel, aspects of practice organization, educational activities, clinical activities and equipment. CONCLUSION. Training practices are not only more developed than non-training practices but are also more innovative. The gap between training and non-training practices did grow wider between 1982 and 1990. This may be because the members of training practices are inherently more innovative, face fewer obstacles to innovation or that the scheme for approval of practices for training has encouraged specific innovations. Any future accreditation scheme for general practices must be organized to encourage accelerated development in less developed practices rather than only stimulate innovation in already advanced practices.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baker R. Comparison of standards in training and non-training practices. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 Jul;35(276):330–332. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baker R. General practice in Gloucestershire, Avon and Somerset: explaining variations in standards. Br J Gen Pract. 1992 Oct;42(363):415–418. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bosanquet N., Leese B. Family doctors and innovation in general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988 Jun 4;296(6636):1576–1580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6636.1576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bosanquet N., Leese B. Family doctors: their choice of practice strategy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Sep 13;293(6548):667–670. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6548.667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fleming D. M., Lawrence M. S., Cross K. W. List size, screening methods, and other characteristics of practices in relation to preventive care. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 Sep 28;291(6499):869–872. doi: 10.1136/bmj.291.6499.869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hannay D. R., Usherwood T. P., Platts M. Practice organization before and after the new contract: a survey of general practices in Sheffield. Br J Gen Pract. 1992 Dec;42(365):517–520. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murray T. S., Dyker G. S., Campbell L. M. Characteristics of general practitioners who are high attenders at educational meetings. Br J Gen Pract. 1992 Apr;42(357):157–159. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schofield T. P., Hasler J. C. Approval of trainers and training practices in the Oxford region: criteria. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Feb 18;288(6416):538–540. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6416.538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]