Datasets collected in general practice: an international comparison using the example of obesity
Elizabeth Sturgiss A C and Kees van Boven BA Academic Unit of General Practice, Australian National University, Canberra Hospital Campus, Building 4, Level 2, Garran, 2605, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
B Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, Netherlands. Email: Kees.vanBoven@radboudumc.nl
C Corresponding author. Email: Elizabeth.sturgiss@anu.edu.au
Australian Health Review 42(5) 563-567 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17157
Submitted: 7 July 2017 Accepted: 28 March 2018 Published: 4 June 2018
Journal compilation © AHHA 2018 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
International datasets from general practice enable the comparison of how conditions are managed within consultations in different primary healthcare settings. The Australian Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) and TransHIS from the Netherlands collect in-consultation general practice data that have been used extensively to inform local policy and practice. Obesity is a global health issue with different countries applying varying approaches to management. The objective of the present paper is to compare the primary care management of obesity in Australia and the Netherlands using data collected from consultations. Despite the different prevalence in obesity in the two countries, the number of patients per 1000 patient-years seen with obesity is similar. Patients in Australia with obesity are referred to allied health practitioners more often than Dutch patients. Without quality general practice data, primary care researchers will not have data about the management of conditions within consultations. We use obesity to highlight the strengths of these general practice data sources and to compare their differences.
What is known about the topic? Australia had one of the longest-running consecutive datasets about general practice activity in the world, but it has recently lost government funding. The Netherlands has a longitudinal general practice dataset of information collected within consultations since 1985.
What does this paper add? We discuss the benefits of general practice-collected data in two countries. Using obesity as a case example, we compare management in general practice between Australia and the Netherlands. This type of analysis should start all international collaborations of primary care management of any health condition. Having a national general practice dataset allows international comparisons of the management of conditions with primary care. Without a current, quality general practice dataset, primary care researchers will not be able to partake in these kinds of comparison studies.
What are the implications for practitioners? Australian primary care researchers and clinicians will be at a disadvantage in any international collaboration if they are unable to accurately describe current general practice management. The Netherlands has developed an impressive dataset that requires within-consultation data collection. These datasets allow for person-centred, symptom-specific, longitudinal understanding of general practice management. The possibilities for the quasi-experimental questions that can be answered with such a dataset are limitless. It is only with the ability to answer clinically driven questions that are relevant to primary care that the clinical care of patients can be measured, developed and improved.
References
[1] Jepson M, Salisbury C, Ridd MJ, Metcalfe C, Garside L, Barnes RK. The ‘One in a Million’ study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations. Br J Gen Pract 2017; 67 e345–51.| The ‘One in a Million’ study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Garcia R. Big data, big possibilities. How Australia can use big data for better healthcare. Sydney: The McKell Institute; 2016.
[3] Hermon R, Williams PAH. Big data in healthcare: What is it used for? Proceedings of the 3rd Australian eHealth Informatics and Security Conference; 1–3 December 2014; Perth, Australia. SRI Security Research Institute; 2014.
[4] Roski J, Bo-Linn GW, Andrews TA. Creating value in health care through big data: opportunities and policy implications. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33 1115–22.
| Creating value in health care through big data: opportunities and policy implications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Peiris D, Agaliotis M, Patel B, Patel A. Validation of a general practice audit and data extraction tool. Aust Fam Physician 2013; 42 816–19.
[6] Williamson M, Gillies M, Merrifield A, London J, Carmichael D, Huang N. Snapshot of type 2 diabetes care in general practice: first results from MedicineInsight. 2014 PHC Research Conference; Canberra, Australia. 2014.
[7] Turner LR, Harris MF, Mazza D. Obesity management in general practice: does current practice match guideline recommendations? Med J Aust 2015; 202 370–2.
| Obesity management in general practice: does current practice match guideline recommendations?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Ghosh A. Depressed, anxious and breathless missing out: weight screening in general practice in a regional catchment of New South Wales. Aust J Rural Health 2016; 24 246–52.
| Depressed, anxious and breathless missing out: weight screening in general practice in a regional catchment of New South Wales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Gordon J, Miller G, Britt H. Reality check – reliable national data from general practice electronic health records. Canberra: Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association; 2016.
[10] Kaiser Permanente. Research bank. 2017. Available at: https://researchbank.kaiserpermanente.org/our-research/for-researchers/ [verified 15 October 2017].
[11] Murdoch TB, Detsky AS. The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA 2013; 309 1351–2.
| The inevitable application of big data to health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Raghupathi W, Raghupathi V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Inf Sci Syst 2014; 2 3
| Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Britt H, Miller G, Henderson J, Bayram C, Harrison C, Valenti L, Pan Y, Charles J, Pollack AJ, Wong C, Gordon J. General practice activity in Australia 2015–16. Sydney: Sydney University Press; 2016.
[14] World Organization of National Colleges Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners Family Physicians (WONCA) International Classification Committee. International classification of primary care, second edition (ICPC-2). Oxford: WONCA; 1998.
[15] Okkes I, Oskam S, Boven KV, Lamberts H. Episodes of care in Dutch family practice. Epidemiological data based on the routine use of the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) in the Transition Project of the Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam (1985–2003). In: Okkes I, Oskam S, Lamberts H, editors. ICPC in the Amsterdam Transition Project. Amsterdam: Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Department of Family Medicine; 2005.
[16] FaMe-net. Studies from the Transition Project. 2017. Available at: https://www.transhis.nl/about/studies/ [verified 13 November 2017].
[17] Soler JK, Okkes I, Oskam S, van Boven K, Zivotic P, Jevtic M, Dobbs F, Lamberts H. An international comparative family medicine study of the Transition Project data from the Netherlands, Malta and Serbia. Is family medicine an international discipline? Comparing incidence and prevalence rates of reasons for encounter and diagnostic titles of episodes of care across populations. Fam Pract 2012; 29 283–98.
| An international comparative family medicine study of the Transition Project data from the Netherlands, Malta and Serbia. Is family medicine an international discipline? Comparing incidence and prevalence rates of reasons for encounter and diagnostic titles of episodes of care across populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Lamberts H, Hofmans-Okkes I. The core of computer based patient records in family practice: episodes of care classified with ICPC. Int J Biomed Comput 1996; 42 35–41.
| The core of computer based patient records in family practice: episodes of care classified with ICPC.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Overweight and obesity. In: National health survey: first results, 2014–15. Canberra: ABS; 2015. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4364.0.55.001~2014-15~Main%20Features~Overweight%20and%20obesity~22 [verified 4 May 2018].
[20] StatLine. Lengte en gewicht van personen, ondergewicht en overgewicht; vanaf 1981. [in Dutch] In: Centraal Bureau van Statistiek, editor. Amsterdam 2016. Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=81565NED [verified 9 May 2018].
[21] Duckett S, Swerissen H, Moran G. Building better foundations for primary care. Sydney: Grattan Institute; 2017.
[22] Asselin JD, Osunlana A, Ogunleye A, Sharma AM, Campbell-Scherer D. Hidden in plain sight: the embedded nature of obesity in primary care visits. Can J Diabetes 2015; 39 S53
| Hidden in plain sight: the embedded nature of obesity in primary care visits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Lamberts H, Oskam SK, Okkes IM. The clinical relationship between symptoms and the final diagnosis in general practice, determined by means of posterior probabilities calculated on the basis of the Transition Project. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005; 149 2566–72.
[24] Irving G, Neves AL, Dambha-Miller H, Oishi A, Tagashira H, Verho A, Holden J. International variations in primary care physician consultation time: a systematic review of 67 countries. BMJ Open 2017; 7 e017902
| International variations in primary care physician consultation time: a systematic review of 67 countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
