Abstract
Background Longer GP consultations are recommended for people with multimorbidity. In Scotland, multimorbid patients in deprived areas did not have longer consultations though their counterparts in the least deprived areas did. We are not aware of research testing this particular example of the inverse care law in England.
Aim To assess length of GP consultation for patients with and without multimorbidity and whether this varies by socioeconomic deprivation.
Design and Setting Random sample of over 1.2 million consultations between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2016 for 185,755 adults in England drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
Method Consultation duration was derived from time of opening and closing the patient’s electronic record. Duration was modelled as a function of multimorbidity status, index of multiple deprivation, and their interaction, with adjustment for age, sex, GP trainee status and patient level random effect.
Results Mean adjusted consultation length in the most deprived fifth of areas was 10.8 (95% CI 10.7,10.9) minutes for people with 2+ physical conditions and 11.0 (95% CI 10.9,11.1) minutes for people with 2+ conditions including a mental health condition. This compares with 11.0 (95% CI 10.9,11.0) minutes for non-multimorbid people in the least deprived fifth of areas.
Conclusion Consultation length for people with multimorbidity in the most deprived areas is no higher than that for non-multimorbid people in the least deprived areas. Further research is needed to assess the impact of consultation length on patient and system outcomes for people with multimorbidity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by The Health Foundation as part of core activity of members of staff at The Health Foundation.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
We used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Data access for this project has been approved (ISAC 17_150R). Data used for this analysis is not publically available but anonymised patient datasets can be extracted for researchers against specific study specifications, following protocol approval from the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) https://www.cprd.com/
