rss
Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:337-342 doi:10.1136/qhc.12.5.337
  • Original Article

Is it possible and worth keeping track of deaths within general practice? Results of a 15 year observational study

  1. B Beaumont1,
  2. B Hurwitz2
  1. 1GP Principal, 2 Mitchison Road Practice, London N1 3NG and Visiting Research Fellow at the Primary Care Research Group, Health Promotion Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  2. 2GP Principal, 2 Mitchison Road Practice, London N1 3NG and Professor of Medicine and the Arts, King’s College, London WC2R 2LS, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr B Beaumont, The Surgery, 2 Mitchison Road, London N1 3NG, UK; 
 bbeaumont{at}doctors.org.uk
  • Accepted 4 June 2003

Abstract

Aim: To assess the value of maintaining a death register in a general practice with particular reference to monitoring quality of care.

Design of study: Observational study.

Setting: Inner London general practice.

Method: The practice maintained a manual death register, retained medical records of all deceased patients, and requested information on cause of death from health authorities and coroners for 15 years.

Main outcome measures: Number and causes of deaths; 3 yearly age standardised death rates; proportion of deaths formally notified to the practice; place of death; source of cause of death information.

Results: During the study period 578 patients died. Practice age standardised death rates fell significantly from 35.59 to 27.12/1000. 498 (86.2%) deaths were formally notified to the practice, 392 within 7 days of death. Of 143 deaths reported to the coroner, only 45 coroners’ reports were received. 360 (64.1%) died in hospital, 139 (24.8%) at home, and 38 (6.8%) in a hospice. Death certificate cause of death information was obtained from patients’ records in 33.6% (n=194) of cases and from health authority sources for 50% (n=289). The pattern of ascertained causes of deaths was similar to the national pattern.

Conclusion: A death register can examine trends in practice deaths by age and place of death and comparisons undertaken with nationally published mortality data. An accurate picture of cause of death cannot be generated from routine data flows alone. There is delay in informing GPs of patient deaths. Meaningful and timely monitoring of deaths cannot be undertaken by individual practices. National Statistics should provide routine analysis of GP death certificate information.

Footnotes

  • See editorial commentary, pp 325–6

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.