| Autor: |
Gray, Denis Pereira, Sidaway-Lee, Kate, Whitaker, Philippa, Evans, Philip |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
British Journal of General Practice; Jun2023, Vol. 73 Issue 731, p279-282, 4p |
| Abstrakt: |
If the named GP is not the GP with whom the patient has (or is expected to have) a continuing therapeutic relationship, the SLICC and OPR are not very meaningful, for example, if practices did not keep this field up-to-date after a change in GP. Currently, in some practices, the requirement for a named GP is seen as an administrative formality and patients are not encouraged to see their named GP,[20] nor does the GP take long-term responsibility for the patient. The Select Committee published results showing both good (>50% SLICC) and excellent GP continuity (>75% SLICC).[21] CONCLUSION Measuring GP continuity in all English general practices is now proposed. SLICC The SLICC is the percentage of all patient GP consultations that are with their named/registered/personal/list-holding GP.[11] It is a simple percentage and is quickly understood by GPs and staff. [Extracted from the article] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
