Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1991 Nov 9;303(6811):1177–1179. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6811.1177

Performance of skin biopsies by general practitioners.

L J McWilliam 1, F Knox 1, N Wilkinson 1, P Oogarah 1
PMCID: PMC1671492  PMID: 1747616

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate and appraise skin biopsies performed by general practitioners and compare their performance with that of hospital doctors. DESIGN--Retrospective analysis of histology records. SETTING--University hospital. SUBJECTS--Records of 292 skin biopsy specimens obtained by general practitioners and 324 specimens obtained by general and plastic surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Clinical and pathological diagnoses and completeness of excision. RESULTS--The number of specimens received from hospital surgeons and general practitioners increased over the study period; the proportion of specimens from general practitioners rose from 17/1268 (1.3%) in 1984 to 201/2387 (8.7%) in 1990. The range of diagnoses was similar among hospital and general practitioner cases, although malignancy was commoner in hospital cases (63/324 (19%) v 14/292 (5%) in general practitioner cases; chi 2 = 28, p less than 0.00001). Completeness of excision was less common among general practitioners than hospital surgeons (150/233 (3/15 malignant) v 195/232 (57/63); chi 2 = 22, p less than 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS--The increase in minor surgery has implications for the staffing and finance of histopathology departments. General practitioners must be given proper training in performing skin biopsies, and all specimens should be sent for examination.

Full text

PDF
1177

Selected References

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

  1. Brown J. S. Minor operations in general practice. Br Med J. 1979 Jun 16;1(6178):1609–1610. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.6178.1609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Galloway M., Senadhira A. Labs take the strain. Health Serv J. 1990 Jul 12;100(5209):1037–1037. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Godfrey E., Watkiss M., Schnieden H. Initiation and evaluation of a pilot scheme for minor surgery in general practice. Health Trends. 1990;22(2):57–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jenkins S. Screening and the 1990 contract. BMJ. 1990 Mar 31;300(6728):825–826. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6728.825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Pringle M., Hasler J., De Marco P. Training for minor surgery in general practice during preregistration surgical posts. BMJ. 1991 Apr 6;302(6780):830–832. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6780.830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sharman J. Patient's response to a general practice minor surgery service. Practitioner. 1986 Jan;230(1411):27–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Slater D. Screening and the 1990 contract. BMJ. 1990 Apr 21;300(6731):1074–1074. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6731.1074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wall D. W. A review of minor surgery in general practice in the United Kingdom. Fam Pract. 1987 Dec;4(4):322–329. doi: 10.1093/fampra/4.4.322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES