Skip to main content
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2001 Apr;51(465):264–269.

A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings.

A Bowling 1, M Bond 1
PMCID: PMC1313974  PMID: 11458477

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Encouraged by the increased purchasing power of general practitioners (GPs), specialist-run clinics in general practice and community health care settings (known as specialist outreach clinics) have increased rapidly across England. The activities of local commissioning schemes within primary care groups are likely to accelerate this trend. AIM: To evaluate the costs, processes, and benefits of specialists' outreach clinics held in GPs' surgeries, compared with hospital outpatient clinics. DESIGN OF STUDY: A case-referent (comparative) study comparing the characteristics of outreach clinics (cases) with matched outpatient control clinics. SETTING: Thirty-eight outreach clinics, compared with 38 matched outpatient clinics as controls, covering 14 hospital trust areas across England. METHOD: Self-administered questionnaires were given to patients in both clinic settings. These covered processes, satisfaction, personal costs, and health status, with postal follow-up at six months to assess health outcomes. Self-administered questionnaires were also given to the specialists and GPs whose clinics were included in the study (individual patient clinical sheet and an attitude questionnaire), practice managers, and trust accountants (process and costs questionnaire). Evaluation of the costs, processes, and benefits of specialist outreach clinics versus hospital outpatient clinics was carried out by comparing questionnaire responses. RESULTS: In comparison with outpatients, outreach clinic patients spent less time on the waiting lists for appointments to see the specialist, they had shorter waiting times in clinics, fewer follow-up appointments, and were more likely to be completely discharged after the sampled attendance. Outreach patients were more satisfied than outpatients with the range of clinic process items asked about. Most doctors felt that the outreach clinic was 'worthwhile'. While patients' personal costs were lower in outreach than in outpatients clinics, NHS costs were more expensive per patient in outreach. The benefits of outreach clinics on patients' health status at six months' follow-up were relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach clinics are a means of improving access to specialist services for patients, in addition to improving the efficiency and quality of health care. Most results were similar across specialties and areas. The benefits of the outreach service need to be weighed against their substantially higher NHS costs, in comparison with outpatients clinics. Outreach clinics are unlikely to be financially justifiable for NHS funding given that the impact on patients' health status was small.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (78.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bailey J. J., Black M. E., Wilkin D. Specialist outreach clinics in general practice. BMJ. 1994 Apr 23;308(6936):1083–1086. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6936.1083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Black M., Leese B., Gosden T., Mead N. Specialist outreach clinics in general practice: what do they offer? Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Sep;47(422):558–561. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bond M., Bowling A., Abery A., McClay M., Dickinson E. Evaluation of outreach clinics held by specialists in general practice in England. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 Feb;54(2):149–156. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.2.149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowling A., Stramer K., Dickinson E., Windsor J., Bond M. Evaluation of specialists' outreach clinics in general practice in England: process and acceptability to patients, specialists, and general practitioners. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997 Feb;51(1):52–61. doi: 10.1136/jech.51.1.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowling A. What things are important in people's lives? A survey of the public's judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1995 Nov;41(10):1447–1462. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00113-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowling A., Windsor J. Discriminative power of the health status questionnaire 12 in relation to age, sex, and longstanding illness: findings from a survey of households in Great Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997 Oct;51(5):564–573. doi: 10.1136/jech.51.5.564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gillam S. J., Ball M., Prasad M., Dunne H., Cohen S., Vafidis G. Investigation of benefits and costs of an ophthalmic outreach clinic in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Dec;45(401):649–652. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gosden T., Black M., Mead N., Leese B. The efficiency of specialist outreach clinics in general practice: is further evaluation needed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Jul;2(3):174–179. doi: 10.1177/135581969700200309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Parkerson G. R., Jr, Broadhead W. E., Tse C. K. The Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI) for measurement of severity and comorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Apr;46(4):379–393. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90153-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES