Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2001 Aug;51(469):644–650.

Practice size: impact on consultation length, workload, and patient assessment of care.

J L Campbell 1, J Ramsay 1, J Green 1
PMCID: PMC1314075  PMID: 11510394

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Variations in practice list size are known to be associated with changes in a number of markers of primary care. Few studies have addressed the issue of how single-handed and smaller practices compare with larger group practices and what might be the optimal size of a general practice. AIM: To examine variations in markers of the nature of the care being provided by practices of various size. DESIGN OF STUDY: Practice profile questionnaire survey. SETTING: A randomised sample of general practitioners (GPs) and practices from two inner-London areas, stratified according to practice size and patients attending the practice over a two-week period. METHOD: Average consultation length was calculated over 200 consecutive consultations. A patient survey using the General Practice Assessment Survey instrument was undertaken in each practice. A practice workload survey was carried out over a two-week period. These outcome measures were examined in relation to five measures of practice size based on total list size and the number of doctors providing care. RESULTS: Out of 202 pratices approached, 54 provided analysable datasets. The patient survey response rate was 7247/11,000 (66%). Smaller practices had shorter average consultation lengths and reduced practice performance scores compared with larger practices. The number of patients corrected for the number of doctors providing care was an important predictor of consultation length in group practices. Responders from smaller practices reported improved accessibility of care and receptionist performance, better continuity of care compared with larger practices, and no disadvantage in relation to 10 other dimensions of care. Practices with smaller numbers of patients per doctor had longer average consultation lengths than those with larger numbers of patients per doctor. CONCLUSION: Defining the optimal size of practice is a complex decision in which the views of doctors, patients, and health service managers may be at variance. Some markers of practice performance are related to the total number of patients cared for, but the practice size corrected for the number of available doctors gives a different perspective on the issue. An oversimplistic approach that fails to account for the views of patients as well as health professionals is likely to be disadvantageous to service planning.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (81.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baker R., Streatfield J. What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Dec;45(401):654–659. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowling A., Redfern J. The process of outpatient referral and care: the experiences and views of patients, their general practitioners, and specialists. Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Feb;50(451):116–120. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Campbell J. L., Elton R. A. Consultation, waiting, prescribing and referral patterns: some methodological considerations. Fam Pract. 1994 Jun;11(2):182–186. doi: 10.1093/fampra/11.2.182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell J. L. General practitioner appointment systems, patient satisfaction, and use of accident and emergency services--a study in one geographical area. Fam Pract. 1994 Dec;11(4):438–445. doi: 10.1093/fampra/11.4.438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell J. L. Patients' perceptions of medical urgency: does deprivation matter? Fam Pract. 1999 Feb;16(1):28–32. doi: 10.1093/fampra/16.1.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell J. L. The reported availability of general practitioners and the influence of practice list size. Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Aug;46(409):465–468. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carr-Hill R., Jenkins-Clarke S., Dixon P., Pringle M. Do minutes count? Consultation lengths in general practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998 Oct;3(4):207–213. doi: 10.1177/135581969800300405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Green J. M. The views of singlehanded general practitioners: a qualitative study. BMJ. 1993 Sep 4;307(6904):607–610. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6904.607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Howie J. G., Hopton J. L., Heaney D. J., Porter A. M. Attitudes to medical care, the organization of work, and stress among general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract. 1992 May;42(358):181–185. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Howie J. G., Porter A. M., Forbes J. F. Quality and the use of time in general practice: widening the discussion. BMJ. 1989 Apr 15;298(6679):1008–1010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6679.1008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Howie J. G., Porter A. M., Heaney D. J., Hopton J. L. Long to short consultation ratio: a proxy measure of quality of care for general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1991 Feb;41(343):48–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jenkins C., Campbell J. Catchment areas in general practice and their relation to size and quality of practice and deprivation: a descriptive study in one London borough. BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1189–1192. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Morrell D. C., Roland M. O. How can good general practitioner care be achieved? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987 Jan 17;294(6565):161–162. doi: 10.1136/bmj.294.6565.161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pierce M., Agarwal G., Ridout D. A survey of diabetes care in general practice in England and Wales. Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Jul;50(456):542–545. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Proctor S., Campbell J. A developmental performance framework for primary care. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 1999;12(6-7):279–286. doi: 10.1108/09526869910287549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ramsay J., Campbell J. L., Schroter S., Green J., Roland M. The General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS): tests of data quality and measurement properties. Fam Pract. 2000 Oct;17(5):372–379. doi: 10.1093/fampra/17.5.372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rodger E., Watkins S. General practice. Variations enigma. Health Serv J. 1999 Sep 2;109(5670):20–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Safran D. G., Kosinski M., Tarlov A. R., Rogers W. H., Taira D. H., Lieberman N., Ware J. E. The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care. 1998 May;36(5):728–739. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199805000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Shelley M., Croft P., Chapman S., Pantin C. Is the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid to bronchodilator a good indicator of the quality of asthma prescribing? Cross sectional study linking prescribing data to data on admissions. BMJ. 1996 Nov 2;313(7065):1124–1126. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7065.1124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES