Abstrakti

Background: In Finland, there have been various strategies attempting to provide access to GPs. The
'restricted-List General Practitioner model' (rLGP) was launched in primary health care (PHC) in the
city of Vantaa after the 'named General Practitioner model' (nGP) failed to provide sufficient access to
GPs. This was done to improve access to GP appointments for those most needing care.
Aim: To evaluate the impact of the transition from nGP to rLGP on access to non-urgent scheduled
appointments among patients aged ≥75 years.
Design & setting: A register-based follow-up study in public PHC in Vantaa, Finland.
Method: The study focused on patients aged ≥75 years who used PHC from 2004–2008. It looked
at the number of non-urgent and urgent scheduled appointments, patient contacts, home visits,
PHC emergency department appointments, and cancelled appointments, which were recorded 7
years before and after the transition from nGP to rLGP in 2011 and adjusted to patient-years. Non-
urgent appointments were booked to the patient’s own nGP or rLGP in public PHC, whereas urgent
appointments could be to any GP.
Results: The number of non-urgent scheduled appointments to GPs was halved during the time of
nGP, before launching the rLGP. Simultaneously, the number of urgent scheduled appointments more
than tripled. The number of both started to plateau a year before the rLGP was launched. The number
of both non-urgent and urgent scheduled appointments remained mainly at that level after rLGP was
implemented.
Conclusion: The rLGP model was unsuccessful in improving access to non-urgent scheduled
appointments to GPs.
Alkuperäiskielienglanti
ArtikkeliBJGPO.2022.0101
Lehti BJGP open
Vuosikerta7
Numero3
Sivumäärä7
ISSN2398-3795
DOI - pysyväislinkit
TilaJulkaistu - syysk. 2023
OKM-julkaisutyyppiA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä, vertaisarvioitu

Tieteenalat

  • 3142 Kansanterveystiede, ympäristö ja työterveys

Siteeraa tätä