Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Briefs

Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance

Michael Edmund O’Callaghan, Lina Zgaga, Darach O’Ciardha and Thomas O’Dowd
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2018, 16 (3) 246-249; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2229
Michael Edmund O’Callaghan
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
MICGP, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lina Zgaga
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
MD, MSc, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Darach O’Ciardha
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
MICGP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas O’Dowd
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
MA, MD, MICGP, FRCGP, FTCD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance - Dr W Behan's eLetter 6th May 21
    Michael E O'Callaghan
    Published on: 14 May 2021
  • RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
    William Behan
    Published on: 06 May 2021
  • Published on: (14 May 2021)
    Page navigation anchor for RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance - Dr W Behan's eLetter 6th May 21
    RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance - Dr W Behan's eLetter 6th May 21
    • Michael E O'Callaghan, General Practitioner, University of Limerick

    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.
    However, we were careful to include the explainer point "b" in this Table to clearly ident...

    Show More

    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.
    However, we were careful to include the explainer point "b" in this Table to clearly identify this issue.

    Regarding the use of different figures as denominators for the various calculations, I don't feel there is any optimal way to work with imperfect data, where there is limited visibility on individual patients moving between patient cohorts, services and those who may feature in one year of data collected and not in the other. With this is mind, and given the transient nature of patients in terms of the services they attend (especially "out of pocket" patients, and particularly in the "out of hours setting"), we felt it was a reasonable decision to group patients together first by year and then by the other parameters outlined (as this {1 yr of visits -> policy change -> 1 yr of visits} approach captures the sudden change on 1st July 2015 where patients could avail of free GP services).

    Since publication of the article thankfully in Ireland we have seen the kind of large scale population surveys that are needed to address (chiefly the Healthy Ireland surveys https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/231c02-healthy-ireland-survey-wave/) some of the issues highlighted herein (i.e. what the various age cohort population attendance rates are).
    Your modified table, using data from other sources, is logical and could indeed be combined with such Healthy Ireland data in future work.

    However, I do feel the article's main message is still valid and valuable as it clearly shows that free visits leads to increased workload for GPs.

    As to whether the issues outlined in your response (and in this reply) represent "errors" or practical decisions around data analysis and presentation is a matter for the reader to consider, based on the evidence presented in the article and this discussion.

    Regards,
    Dr Michael O'Callaghan

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (6 May 2021)
    Page navigation anchor for RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
    RE: Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
    • William Behan, Doctor in General Practice (Family Doctor) and GP Trainer, TCD/HSE Specialist Training Programme in General Practice

    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 More

    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 published visiting rates were calculated from the raw data of who attended in each individual year of the study. This missed both public and private patients who did not attend in either year, causing an increase in the calculated visiting rates above the true population rates. Each Irish GP practice has reliable population data on their total ‘free of charge’ patients but not their ‘out of pocket’ patients. More significantly, they also did not include private patients in their ‘before’ visit rate who did not attend in year 1 but did attend in year 2 of the audit, which had the effect of inflating the year 1 fee paying patients visit rates. This has resulted in compressing the difference between the year one fee-paying and non-fee paying patients’ attendance rates as free access patients are more likely to attend their GP at least once in any year. 4,5

    Nationally the increase in the under 6 years old population that applied for access to free healthcare (GP Visit Card(GPVC)) followed an inverse logarithmic pattern. 7,8,9 (Figure 1.)

    Figure 1.

    The second set of calculation errors were signposted by producing in Table 1. a ‘Year After Policy Change’ ‘Daytime’ ‘Total’ ‘Visits per Patient’ figure that is in excess of both the separate corresponding ‘Out of Pocket’ and the ‘Free of Charge’ visiting rates. The combination of 2 different visiting rates should never generate a larger figure for a combined average rate. This analysis error predominantly affected the visiting rates for year 2 and was produced by fully counting the same patients twice in both the numerator for fee-paying and also non-fee-paying patients. It resulted in reducing the visiting rates for both populations. Most of the national year 1 fee-paying population who attended year 2 moved to non-fee paying early in the year after the policy change. Figure 1. Not considering this eligibility migration in the calculations predominantly diluted the year 2 fee-paying patients visit rates. Using whole year weighted populations as the numerator, which this assessment calculates from nationally available data, would have provided more reliable and on cursory examination of this corrected table 1., plausible visiting rates for the different year 2 ‘out of pocket’ and ‘free of charge’ populations.

    Modified Table 1.

    Comparison of General Practice Use in the Year Before and the Year After Policy Change

    Setting and Payment Status

    Year Before Policy Change

    Year After Policy Change

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Aged <6 y

    Aged <6 y

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Patients

    Visits

    Visits per Patient

    Patients

    Visits

    Visits per Patient

    Daytime

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Out of pocket

    2,415
    2,749

    6,053

    2.51
    2.20

    1,011
    627

    1,753

    1.73
    2.80

    Free of charge

    1,142

    3,736

    3.27

    3,347
    3,274

    10,847

    3.24
    3.31

    Total

    3,540
    3,874

    9,789

    2.77
    2.53

    3,874

    12,600

    3.25

     

    Out of hours

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Out of pocket

    5,023
    6,839

    6,565

    1.31
    0.96

    1,456
    1,114

    1,619

    1.11
    1.45

    Free of charge

    5,017

    8,484

    1.69

    10,824 10,735

    17,290

    1.60
    1.61

    Unknown

    34

    38

    1.12

    41

    49

    1.2

    Total

    9,898
    11,890

    15,087

    1.52
    1.27

    11,890

    18,958

    1.59

    Modified Table 1 only displays the original paper’s under 6 year old figures along with the corrections of both the ‘Patients’ populations and ‘Visits per Patient’ as per the above analysis. Year 2 population weighting is extrapolated from published Irish health service national data. 7,8,9 (Figure 1.) The ‘Visits per Patient’ corrections that have been made in this modified Table 1. do not take into account patients who did not attend the GP in both years of the study which has the effect of reducing the patient populations and inflating the visiting rates. The inflated population by patients from other practices transiently attending study practices is also not taken into account nor is the dilution of workload effect of practice patients attending elsewhere during the study period and non-practice patients infrequently attending. General Practice nurse activity, which delivers most of the primary immunization vaccines in the under 2 years old population, is not included in this audits data collection. Telephone consultations appear to be not included in the data collection.

    This is an important study with reliably collected data which can inform national and international debates on health policy development concerning evolving national Family Physician access. Any errors in this paper appear solely to be at the visiting rate calculations and writing stages. Allowing the above appropriate corrections to be flagged would more reliably reflect the original data in an informed context.

    References


    1. Murphy M, Lecturer in General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Opinion, Irish Times, 9th January 2020. Doctors should welcome free GP care for children (irishtimes.com) On the 10th January 2020 the Irish Minister of Health, Simon Harris TD also referenced this papers suggestion of the lack of difference between fee-paying and non-fee-paying patients visit rates on a current affairs program on RTE1, the national broadcast TV station.

    2. Behan W, General Practitioner, Dublin 12. Letter Irish Times on ‘Free GP care for children’ 11th January 2020. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/free-gp-care-for-children-1.4136146

    3. Module on Health, Quarterly National Household Survey, Quarter 3 2001. Central Statistics Office, Ireland. https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/qnhs/documents/qnhshealth.xlsx

    4. Health Status and Health Service Utilisation, Quarterly National Household Survey, Quarter 3 2007. Central Statistics Office, Ireland. https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2007/healthstatusq32007.pdf

    5. Health Status and Health Service Utilisation, Quarterly National Household Survey, Quarter 3 2010. Central Statistics Office, Ireland. https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2010/healthstatusq32010.pdf

    6. Behan W, Molony D, Beam C, Cullen W. Are Irish Adult General Practice Consultation Rates as Low as Official Records Suggest? A Cross Sectional Study at Six General Practices. Ir Med J. 2013 Nov-Dec;106(10):297-9 http://archive.imj.ie/ViewArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=13077

    7. CSO Population PEA11. Population estimates from 1926, Single Year of Age. https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/populationandmigrationestimates/

    8. Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Service Publications Reporting and Open Data PCRS - Reporting Menu (sspcrs.ie)

    9. Smyth B., Marsden P., Donohue F., Kavanagh P., Kitching A., Feely E., Collins L., Cullen L., Sheridan A., Evans D., Wright P., O'Brien S., Migone C. (2017) Planning for Health: Trends and Priorities to Inform Health Service Planning 2017. Report from the Health Service Executive. ISBN 978-1-78602-037-6 https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/planning-for-health/planningforhealth.pdf

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 16 (3)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 16 (3)
Vol. 16, Issue 3
May/June 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
Michael Edmund O’Callaghan, Lina Zgaga, Darach O’Ciardha, Thomas O’Dowd
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2018, 16 (3) 246-249; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2229

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Free Children’s Visits and General Practice Attendance
Michael Edmund O’Callaghan, Lina Zgaga, Darach O’Ciardha, Thomas O’Dowd
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2018, 16 (3) 246-249; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2229
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Paediatric attendances of the emergency department in a major Irish tertiary referral centre before and after expansion of free GP care to children under 6: a retrospective observational study
  • Childrens unscheduled primary and emergency care in Ireland: a multimethod approach to understanding decision making, trends, outcomes and parental perspectives (CUPID): project protocol
  • A real-time measurement of general practice workload in the Republic of Ireland: a prospective study
  • In This Issue: Sometimes More is Less
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Changes in the Ambulatory Use of Antibiotics in France Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020-2022: A Nationwide Time-Series Analysis
  • Heplisav-B vs Standard Hepatitis B Vaccine Booster for Health Care Workers
  • The General Public Vastly Overestimates Primary Care Spending in the United States
Show more Research Briefs

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Children's health
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Access
  • Other topics:
    • Disparities in health and health care

Keywords

  • general practice
  • health care utilization
  • primary health care
  • after-hours
  • out-of-hours
  • child
  • pediatrics
  • Ireland
  • fee-for-service
  • fees and charges
  • practice-based research
  • health planning
  • state medicine

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine