Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Heaney

Publications and source records attributed to D Heaney.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Developing a standard short questionnaire for the assessment of patient satisfaction with out-of-hours primary care.

BACKGROUND: Governmental reviews of out-of-hours services in England and Scotland have recommended that a standard questionnaire should be used to assess patient satisfaction. This is important because of the rapid introduction of new forms of care. OBJECTIVE: To produce a brief, reliable and valid measure of patient satisfaction for use by a wide variety of providers of out-of-hours primary care. METHODS: The Short Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours care was designed and compared with a longer questionnaire which had been validated and used in earlier research. Questionnaires were sent to 1906 people contacting an out-of-hours GP co-operative. Three versions of the short questionnaire were used with different formats. Analysis compared the response rates, measurement properties, concurrent and construct validity of the short and long questionnaires, and of different versions of the short questionnaire. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the overall response rates obtained from the short or long questionnaires (45.7% versus 41.9%; P = 0.17). The effective response rate of questionnaires from which all satisfaction scales could be calculated was higher for the short questionnaire (43.0% versus 36.4%; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in response rates or distribution of responses between different versions of the short questionnaire. There was moderate agreement between items on the short questionnaire and corresponding scales on the long questionnaire. Scores using the short questionnaire showed anticipated relationships with the age and sex of patients and with characteristics of how the service was delivered. The SQOC is valid and reliable for routine service use.

After-Hours Care↗
PubMed2005

A comparative study on attitudes, mental health and job stress amongst GPs participating, or not, in a rural out-of-hours co-operative.

OBJECTIVES: To test the study hypothesis that GPs participating in co-operatives will have more positive attitudes towards co-operatives, better mental health and less stress than GPs using traditional out-of-hours arrangements. METHODS: A comparative questionnaire study was conducted amongst GPs, participating, or not, in an out-of-hours, largely rural, co-operative ('NoWDOC') which had been established one year previously. The general attitudes of GPs towards out-of-hours work were obtained together with responses to the General Health Questionnaire-12 (mental health) and Stress Arousal Checklist (job stress). RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 120 eligible practitioners responded (74%). The mean GHQ scores for GPs in NoWDOC was 10.2 [standard deviation (SD) 3.9] compared to a score of 11.3 (SD 4.5) for those not participating (t = -1.18; P = 0.24). The overall mean stress score for members of NoWDOC was 3.8 (SD 2.6) compared to 3.4 (SD 2.7) for non-NoWDOC (t = 0.59; P = 0.55). The overall mean arousal score for NoWDOC GPs was 5.2 (SD 2.0) compared to 5.5 (SD 2.9) for non-NoWDOC GPs (t = -0.68; P = 0.50). Multiple regression analyses suggested that the independent variables (partnership arrangements, age, working hours and membership of NoWDOC) did not account for any of the variability in the GHQ score but a significant amount of variability in stress and arousal scores. CONCLUSIONS: The anticipated differences in mental health and job stress among participating GPs were not shown. As the new generation of GPs resemble the NoWDOC participants in their preferences for multi-partner practices with limited out-of-hours care provision, clarification of these findings is important.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Minor illness and injury: factors influencing attendance at a paediatric accident and emergency department.

AIMS: To gather information on children with minor illness or injury presenting to a paediatric accident and emergency (A&E) department and the decision making process leading to their attendance. METHODS: Prospective questionnaire based survey of 465 children selected by systematic sampling from A&E attenders allocated to the lowest triage category. RESULTS: The study population was statistically representative of the total population of A&E attenders. The lower deprivation categories were over represented. Educational attainment, childcare experience, and parental coping skills were important in relation to A&E attendance. More children attended with injury as opposed to illness. There were no significant demographic differences between those children who presented directly to A&E and those who made prior contact with a GP. Just under half the study population had made contact with a general practitioner (GP) before attending A&E. The majority of those children were directly referred to A&E at that point. GPs referred equivalent numbers of children with illness and injury. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and GPs view paediatric A&E departments as an appropriate place to seek treatment for children with minor illness or injury.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

What does GP out of hours care cost? An analysis of different models of out of hours care in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: The changes to out of hours care provided by General Practitioners have led to wide variation in the types and costs of out of hours care across the country. AIM: To examine the costs of different models of service delivery for GP out of hours organisations. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional survey of eight GP out of hours organisations and samples of their patients. A deputising service, rotas, and various types of GP co-operative across Scotland were surveyed. Information on the quantities of resources used by each organisation was combined with unit costs. Costs incurred by patients and other NHS costs subsequent to the out of hours contact were also calculated. RESULTS: Annual costs incurred by the GP out of hours organisation per 1,000 population ranged from pounds sterling 2,916 to pounds sterling 12,120. There was no relationship between costs and type and size of organisation. There was a three-fold variation in total costs per out of hours contact (pounds sterling 15 to pounds sterling 51). Costs per phone contact were lowest (pounds sterling 6 to pounds sterling 11), followed by cost per centre contact (pounds sterling 10 to pounds sterling 16) and cost per home contact (pounds sterling 21 to pounds sterling 60). Total costs per episode ranged from pounds sterling 78 to pounds sterling 136 for centre contacts, from pounds sterling 130 to pounds sterling 303 for home contacts, and from pounds sterling 70 to pounds sterling 553 for telephone contacts. Home contacts had the highest average cost per episode (pounds sterling 212), followed by telephone contacts (pounds sterling 117) and centre contacts (pounds sterling 85). CONCLUSIONS: There are wide variations in the costs of operating GP out of hours services, It is likely that the context in which organisations were set up and local geography infuence variations in costs, as well as the level of GP cover.

After-Hours Care↗
PubMed2001

Assessment of impact of information booklets on use of healthcare services: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of patient information booklets on overall use of health services, on particular types of use, and on possible interactions between use, deprivation category of the area in which respondents live, and age. To investigate the possibility of a differential effect on health service use between two information booklets. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of two patient information booklets (covering the management and treatment of minor illness). SETTING: 20 general practices in Lothian, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of patients from the community health index (n=4878) and of those contacting out of hours services (n=4530) in the previous 12 months in each of the study general practices. INTERVENTION: Booklets were posted to participants in intervention groups (3288 were sent What Should I Do?; 3127 were sent Health Care Manual). Patients randomised to control group (2993) did not receive a booklet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of health services audited from patients' general practice notes in 12 months after receipt of booklet. RESULTS: Receipt of either booklet had no significant effect on health service use compared with a control group. However, nine out of ten matched practices allocated to receive Health Care Manual had reduced consultation rates compared with matched practices allocated to What Should I Do? CONCLUSION: Widespread distribution of information booklets about the management of minor illness is unlikely to reduce demand for health services.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1996

A study of interruption rates for practice nurses and GPs.

This study compares the rate and perceptions of interruptions experienced by practice nurses and GPs. During two recording periods, nurses noted the number of interruptions they experienced before and during their consultations (Paxton et al 1996). The nurses reported 48.5 interruptions per 100 consultations in the first period and 30.2 in the second. Fifty per cent of nurses in the first period and 33 per cent in the second were interrupted during consultation more than ten times per 100 consultations. Nurses reported that interruptions were distracting, affected patient flow and that the confidential nature of some consultations was irrevocably damaged by constant disturbances. It was the perception of the nurses that GPs caused most interruptions. Few patients, however, reported being disturbed as a result of an interruption to the nurse. The rate of interruptions for GPs was much lower and 94 per cent reported being interrupted during fewer than one in 20 consultations, although even then doctors reported interruptions as disruptive. Despite the decrease in interruptions to nurses in the second period of recording, the level remained much higher than that of interruptions to doctors.

Family Practice↗