Published eLetters
If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.
Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance - Dr W Behan's eLetter 6th May 21RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance - Dr W Behan's eLetter 6th May 21
Dear Dr Behan,
Thank you for taking the time to appraise our study.
You've highlighted many of the limitations when relying solely on data from EMRs (i.e. you have no sight of those not turning up in the data).
Hence I understand what you mean by the term "attendance rate" ideally being reserved for calculations where you can factor in the population level visitation behaviour, which we of course could not. Therefore, a limitation of the study might read "As this study only examined attendance behaviour of patients presenting to GP services, it is not possible to comment on overall population attendance rates".Thus, perhaps use of the term "rate" in the Abstract and Results might distract from the thrust of the article. However, it is this thrust of the article ( i.e. more patients turning up, and more frequently) that is covered in detail in the discussion.
Also, Table 1 does point out we are discussing "visits per patient", which has no connotations of gauging the behaviour of the population.I also agree that perhaps Table 1 might be improved if we removed the "Total" rows as some patients jumped between cohorts (which is particularly apparent in the "Year After Policy Change"). As you say the average visits per patient should not be greater than the subgroups.
Show More
However, we were careful to include the explainer point "b" in this Table to clearly ident...Competing Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice AttendanceRE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
This retrospective audit of changing GP workload in response to the elimination of GP fees appears to be a well-planned and implemented piece of research. However, there are 2 methodological errors in the published “Visit Per Patient” calculations for each demographic in Table 1. that are repeated in both the abstract and body of the article. The workload figures published in this paper have been referenced in the national healthcare debate and have the potential to adversely influence Irish healthcare policy.1,2 Thus, it is only proper that these errors should be highlighted and corrected.
Average visitation rates should be calculated by dividing the total number of visits generated by a population by the total reference population. This methodology has previously been used by Irish Central Statistics Office surveys 3,4,5 as well as a previous Irish audit of GP workload 6 when calculating average GP attendance rates. Calculations of visiting rates should not just include patients who have attended in the previous 12 months when there is data available on the number of patients who did not attend. Nor should average visiting rates in year 2 be asymmetrically diluted by fully counting all patients in the denominator of the calculation when they only attended for a portion of the year in each of the categories.
The first set of calculation errors produced by the authors were the figures for GP visiting rates for the different populations. The publ...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: None declared.