BMJ  2003;327:933 (18 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7420.933

Letter

General practitioners with special clinical interests

Evidence for effectiveness exists

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Rosen et al say that the evidence for the effectiveness of general practitioner specialist clinics is almost non-existent.¹ This ignores the literature on primary care led chronic disease management clinics in areas such as diabetes, asthma, and hypertension. More recently there has been a growing body of evidence to support the role of primary care clinics in the management of oral anticoagulation.

The evidence both in terms of clinical outcomes and patients' preference points to primary care clinics being the preferred model of service delivery.² This has been recognised within the recent general practitioners' contract with, for the first time, recognition of this service as a form of chronic disease management.

I agree that minimum standards of competence need to be specified—something I have campaigned for in anticoagulation for several years—but it would be unfortunate if this potentially effective form of intervention was left stillborn due to stagnating . . . [Full text of this article]

Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT d.a.fitzmaurice@bham.ac.uk

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

Related Articles

Should women be offered cholesterol lowering drugs to prevent cardiovascular disease? No

Malcolm Kendrick
BMJ 2007 334: 983. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Prevention of coronary heart disease: Statins are even less effective than paper shows

David Taylor, Arnold Jenkins, and Philipp Conradi
BMJ 2004 328: 404. [Extract] [Full Text]

General practitioners with special clinical interests

Rebecca Rosen, Richard Stevens, and Roger Jones
BMJ 2003 327: 460-462. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]