Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27777230›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017

Opportunities for primary care to reduce hospital admissions: a cross-sectional study of geographical variation.

John Busby, Sarah Purdy, William Hollingworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. General practice and the Sustainability and Transformation imperatives.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John BusbyNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC) West, Bristol.
Sarah PurdyCentre for Academic Primary Care; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.
William HollingworthSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing unplanned hospital admissions is a key priority within the UK. Substantial interpractice variation in admission rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) suggests that decreases might be possible.

aimTo identify the clinical areas and patient subgroups where the greatest opportunities exist for GPs to improve ACSC care. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional study using routine hospital data from patients registered at 8123 English GP practices during 2011 and 2012.

methodThe authors used random effects Poisson models to estimate interpractice variation after adjusting for several drivers of healthcare need and availability of local hospital services. Interpractice variation was contrasted across patient subgroups based on age.

resultsThere were 1.8 million hospital admissions. Overall, high-utilisation practices had ACSC admission rates that were 55% (95% CI = 53 to 56) greater than low-utilisation practices. Differences of 67% (95% CI = 65 to 69) were found for chronic ACSCs, which was much larger than the 51% (95% CI = 49 to 52) difference exhibited by acute presentations. At least two-fold differences were found for 15 (54%) ACSCs, although large interpractice variations were not ubiquitous. Admission rates were consistently more variable among younger-than-average patients. The most variable conditions tended to disproportionately affect deprived patients.

conclusionSubstantial interpractice variation suggests that current efforts to standardise primary care have had a limited effect on unplanned hospital admissions. GPs and healthcare commissioners should ensure they are offering best practice care for the most variable clinical areas and patient subgroups identified in the study, particularly in adults aged <70 years with chronic conditions.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareGeneral PracticePrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleGeographyHospitalizationHumansambulatory caregeneral practicegeographical distributionpatient admissionprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID27777230
PMCPMC5198609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.