Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology.

J. Gray

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.301.6744.183-a

1990-07-21

British Medical Journal

Abstract:SIR,-I would like to take issue with Dr Charles B Freer's contention that the high frequency of contact between general practitioners and their older patients means that much of the information required by annual screening of patients aged 75 or more under the new contract will already be known.' In a study of a random sample of people aged 65 and over C Smith and I found that although our information from general practitioners was biased towards the patients they knew relatively well, the doctors did not have any record of a quarter of the prescribed medicines that their patients in this age range were taking, and a fifth of the hypnotic drugs, sedatives, and anxiolytic drugs prescribed fell into this category.2 Neither doctors' records nor their memories contained accessible information about whether a fifth of their patients aged 65 or more lived alone or with others, and there were apparent errors in their recall or their notes for a further 8%. These data suggest that reviewing the medication and social circumstances of elderly people is not done adequately at the moment. To insist on it being done annually for all patients aged 75 or more, however, may well be a wasteful use of limited resources. A more sensible strategy might be an initial screening for all people aged 75 or more with a follow up at different intervals related to various at risk categories. For instance, people aged 85 or more and those with certain chronic conditions or disabilities who live alone might well be reviewed annually. If the mechanism of an enhanced capitation fee is to be used to try to improve the standards of the less good doctors then this could be related to both the identification and regular review of defined at risk categories of patients.