RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Primary care consultation length by deprivation and multimorbidity in England
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.01.27.20018960
DO 10.1101/2020.01.27.20018960
A1 Gopfert, Anya
A1 Deeny, Sarah
A1 Fisher, Rebecca
A1 Stafford, Mai
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/07/2020.01.27.20018960.abstract
AB Background Longer GP consultations are recommended as one way of improving care for people with multimorbidity. In Scotland, multimorbid patients in deprived areas do not have had longer consultations though their counterparts in the least deprived areas do. This example of the inverse care law has not been examined in England.Aim To assess GP consultation length by socioeconomic deprivation and multimorbidity.Design and Setting Random sample of 1.2 million consultations from 1st April 2014-31st March 2016 for 185,755 adults in England drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.Method Consultation duration was derived from time of opening and closing the patient’s electronic record. Mean duration was estimated by multimorbidity level and type, adjusted for number of consultations and other patient and staff characteristics and patient and practice random effects.Results Consultations lasted 10.9 minutes and mean duration increased with number of conditions. Patients with 6+ conditions had 0.9 (95% CI 0.8, 1.0) minutes longer than those with none. Patients with both mental and physical health condition had 0.5 (95% CI 0.4, 0.5) minutes longer than non-multimorbid patients. However, consultations were 0.5 (95% CI 0.4, 0.5) minutes shorter in the most compared with the least deprived fifth of areas at all levels of multimorbidity.Conclusion GPs in England spend longer with patients who have more conditions but at all multimorbidity levels, those in deprived areas have less time per GP consultation. Research is needed to assess the impact of consultation length on patient and system outcomes for people with multimorbidity.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by The Health Foundation as part of core activity of members of staff at The Health Foundation.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesWe used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Data access for this project has been approved (ISAC 17_150R). Data used for this analysis is not publically available but anonymised patient datasets can be extracted for researchers against specific study specifications, following protocol approval from the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) https://www.cprd.com/