Skip to main content
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners logoLink to The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
. 1985 Dec;35(281):581–583.

The management of minor illness by general practitioners

CR Whitehouse, P Hodgkin
PMCID: PMC1961452  PMID: 4093903

Abstract

The management of 12 330 cases of minor illness by 201 urban general practitioners has been studied. The results were analysed by the characteristics of the patients (age and social class) and by the characteristics of the doctors (for example, age of doctor, area of practice, mean time spent with patient).

The age of the patients had little effect on the management of minor illness. Prescribing rates were not found to vary with the social class of the patient but the level of home visiting was affected.

Doctors working in the most affluent wards were found to be lower prescribers than those in the less affluent wards and younger doctors tended to be low prescribers while older doctors tended to be high prescribers. There was a large proportion of non-vocationally trained doctors among the high prescribers. Doctors with short mean consultation times were found to be high prescribers and were more likely to label patients as having minor illness than doctors with longer mean consultation times. In addition, those doctors who used the minor illness codes more often were higher prescribers than those who used them less often.

Full text

PDF
581

Selected References

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

  1. Hodgkin P., Metcalfe D. Clustering diagnoses: a method of interpreting morbidity data. Fam Pract. 1984 Dec;1(4):228–242. doi: 10.1093/fampra/1.4.228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Howie J. G. Diagnosis--the Achilles heel? J R Coll Gen Pract. 1972 May;22(118):310–315. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hughes D. Consultation length and outcome in two group general practices. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1983 Mar;33(248):143–147. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Wilkin D., Metcalfe D. H., Hallam L., Cooke M., Hodgkin P. K. Area variations in the process of care in urban general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Jul 28;289(6439):229–232. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6439.229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Wood J. O. Are general practitioners in inner Manchester worse off than those in adjacent areas? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 Apr 16;286(6373):1249–1252. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6373.1249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Wood J. Are the problems of primary care in inner cities fact or fiction? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 Apr 2;286(6371):1109–1112. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6371.1109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. van Buchem F. L., Peeters M. F., van 't Hof M. A. Acute otitis media: a new treatment strategy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 Apr 6;290(6474):1033–1037. doi: 10.1136/bmj.290.6474.1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES