BMJ  2005;331:1441-1446 (17 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.38670.494734.7C (published 6 December 2005)

Primary care

Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial

¹ Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS6 6JL, ² Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of West of England, Glenside Campus, Bristol BS16 1DD, ³ Department of Primary Health Care, University of Southampton, Lymington, Hampshire SO41 9GH, ⁴ Bristol South and West and Bristol North Primary Care Trusts, Bristol BS2 8EE, ⁵ Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, ⁶ Dermatology Clinic, United Bristol Health Care Trust, Bristol BS2 8HW, ⁷ Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1AU

Objective To assess the effectiveness, accessibility, and acceptability of a general practitioner with special interest service for skin problems compared with a hospital dermatology clinic.

Design Randomised controlled trial.

Setting General practitioner with special interest dermatology service and hospital dermatology clinic.

Participants Adults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic and assessed by a consultant or the general practitioner with special interest service,. Suitable patients had non-urgent skin problems and had been identified from the referral letter as suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest.

Interventions Participants were randomised in 2:1 ratio to receive management by a general practitioner with special interest or usual hospital outpatient care.

Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were disease related quality of life (dermatology life quality index) and improvement in patients' perception of access to services, assessed nine months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, preference for site of care, proportion of failed appointments, and waiting times to first appointment.

Results 49% of the participants were judged suitable for care by the general practitioner with special interest service. Of 768 patients eligible, 556 (72.4%) were randomised (354 to general practitioner with special interest, 202 to hospital outpatient care). After nine months, 422 (76%) were followed up. No noticeable differences were found between the groups in clinical outcome (median dermatology life quality index score = 1 both arms, ratio of geometric means 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.15). The general practitioner with special interest service was more accessible (difference between means on access scale 14, 11 to 19) and waited a mean of 40 (35 to 46) days less. Patients expressed slightly greater satisfaction with consultations with a general practitioner with special interest (difference in mean satisfaction score 4, 1 to 7), and at baseline and after nine months 61% said they preferred care at the service.

Conclusions The general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology was more accessible and preferred by patients than hospital outpatient care, achieving similar clinical outcomes.

Trial registration ISRCTN31962758.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Who's kicking who?

Nigel Hawkes
BMJ 2006 333: 645-648. [Full Text] [PDF]

Psoriasis and its management

Catherine H Smith and J N W N Barker
BMJ 2006 333: 380-384. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: Be wary of generalising research conclusions

Peter M Lapsley
BMJ 2006 332: 53-54. [Extract] [Full Text]

Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: Result for teamwork and planning is positive

Stephen F Hayes
BMJ 2006 332: 54. [Extract] [Full Text]

Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: High cost of general practitioners with special interests is a fallacy

Cornelius J Crowley
BMJ 2006 332: 54. [Extract] [Full Text]

Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: Cost calculations were impenetrable

Simon F Cooper
BMJ 2006 332: 54. [Extract] [Full Text]

GPs with special interests are good but costly
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Eminovic, N., de Keizer, N. F., Wyatt, J. C., ter Riet, G., Peek, N., van Weert, H. C., Bruijnzeel-Koomen, C. A., Bindels, P. J. E. (2009). Teledermatologic Consultation and Reduction in Referrals to Dermatologists: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Dermatol 145: 558-564 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bhargava, J S, Bhan-Bhargava, A, Foss, A J E, King, A J (2008). Views of glaucoma patients on provision of follow-up care; an assessment of patient preferences by conjoint analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 92: 1601-1605 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hargreaves, S. (2008). Collaboration across primary and secondary care dermatology services. Intl J Care Pathw 12: 67-73 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Salisbury, C., Purdy, S. (2007). Providing care closer to home. BMJ 335: 838-838 [Full text]  
• Irani, M., Dixon, M., Dean, J. D (2007). Care closer to home: past mistakes, future opportunities. JRSM 100: 75-77 [Full text]  
• Hawkes, N. (2006). Who's kicking who?. BMJ 333: 645-648 [Full text]  
• Smith, C. H, Barker, J N W N (2006). Psoriasis and its management. BMJ 333: 380-384 [Full text]  
• Hayes, S. F (2006). Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: Result for teamwork and planning is positive. BMJ 332: 54-54 [Full text]  
• Lapsley, P. M (2006). Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: Be wary of generalising research conclusions. BMJ 332: 53-54 [Full text]  
• Crowley, C. J (2006). Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: High cost of general practitioners with special interests is a fallacy. BMJ 332: 54-54 [Full text]  
• Cooper, S. F (2006). Are GPs who specialise in dermatology effective?: Cost calculations were impenetrable. BMJ 332: 54-54 [Full text]  
• Roland, M. (2005). General practitioners with special interests--not a cheap option. BMJ 331: 1448-1449 [Full text]  
• Coast, J., Noble, S., Noble, A., Horrocks, S., Asim, O., Peters, T. J, Salisbury, C. (2005). Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care. BMJ 331: 1444-1449 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Be wary of generalising research conclusions

Peter M Lapsley
bmj.com, 13 Dec 2005 [Full text]

Positive result for teamwork and planning

Stephen F Hayes
bmj.com, 17 Dec 2005 [Full text]

GPwSIs: a useful addition, at a cost, but not a substitute

Robin A C Graham-Brown
bmj.com, 20 Dec 2005 [Full text]

Are GPs who specialise in dermatology equally as effective as hospital Dermatologists?

Rubeta N Matin
bmj.com, 21 Dec 2005 [Full text]

Why can't we invest in a dermatologist led service?

James E R Britton
bmj.com, 23 Dec 2005 [Full text]

Use funds wisely

Richard J Motley
bmj.com, 24 Dec 2005 [Full text]

Re: Why can't we invest in a dermatologist led service?

Jayaprakash Ayillath Gosalakkal
bmj.com, 24 Dec 2005 [Full text]

There are better ways of improving patient care than employing GPwSIs in Dermatology

Mark J D Goodfield
bmj.com, 30 Dec 2005 [Full text]

GPSIs are effective but also have shortcomings

John Wright, et al.
bmj.com, 1 Jan 2006 [Full text]

Purchaser Provider risk with GPSI services

David A de Berker
bmj.com, 3 Jan 2006 [Full text]

Authors' response

Chris Salisbury, et al.
bmj.com, 3 Jan 2006 [Full text]

Incorrect - GPWSI dermatology can be cheaper

RUTH J HARKER
bmj.com, 24 Jan 2006 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>