Which general practices have higher list inflation? An exploratory study

Abstract

If these findings apply to the whole registered population, the national de-ghosting exercise is likely to result in large changes to the list size of some practices. Without correcting for list inflation, primary care research based on patient list size as the denominator may underestimate various measures of GP activity, particularly in deprived inner city areas. Resource allocation is also likely to be distorted by differences in list inflation.

Non-attendance at diabetic eye screening and risk of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy: a population-based cohort study

“…As the screening service is based in three deprived and ethnically heterogeneous south London boroughs, it may not be representative of the English screening population. Non-attendance may in part be explained by list inflation, although this is likely to have reduced following a national initiative to remove duplicate patients from primary care records [19,20]. Participants included in this study were a reduced group of the population invited for screening who had attended for screening in 2008.…”

The low uptake of breast screening in cities is a major public health issue and may be due to organisational factors: A Census-based record linkage study

“…This is a recognized problem with centralized GP registers 18,19,20 and is known to be particularly difficult in large conurbations. Address inaccuracies have been shown to contribute to the lower uptake of cervical screening in cities 21 and for the lower uptake of breast screening amongst Asian women.…”

Socioeconomic deprivation and accident and emergency attendances: cross-sectional analysis of general practices in England

“…30 This may have reduced the strength of the observed association between deprivation and A&E attendances. A&E attendance data are derived from Hospital Episode Statistics, and are incomplete, recording fewer attendances than the Department of Health Weekly A&E situation reports (17.6 million attendances and 21.5 million, respectively).…”