Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP RSC) sentinel network: a cohort profile.
Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP RSC) sentinel network: a cohort profile.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011092
复制
发表时间：
2016-04-20
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
de Lusignan S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Correa A;Hinton W;McGovern A;van Vlymen J;Yonova I;Jones S;de Lusignan S
皇家全科医生研究和监督中心(RCGP RSC)是建立时间最长的初级保健哨点网络之一。2015年，它在萨里大学建立了一个新的数据和分析中心。本文对RCGP RSC网络针对英国人的代表性进行了评估。队列包括在107个参与的全科医生(GP)诊所登记的1 042 063名患者。我们在以下方面将RCGP RSC数据与英国国家数据进行了比较：人口统计数据；地理分布；慢性病患病率、数据记录的管理和完整性；以及处方和疫苗接种率。我们还评估了参与国家抽检方案的网络内的做法。我们发现，25-44岁年龄段的人略有过多，白人种族的代表性不足，贫困程度较低的人。地理上的重点是伦敦，英格兰西南部和东部的做法较少。我们发现糖尿病(全国：6.4%，RCPG RSC：5.8%)、学习障碍(全国：0.44%，RCPG RSC：0.40%)、肥胖(全国：9.2%，RCPG RSC：8.0%)、肺部疾病(全国：1.8%，RCPG RSC：1.6%)和心血管疾病(全国：1.1%，RCPG RSC：1.2%)的患病率存在差异。糖尿病人群危险因素的数据完整性较高(77-99%)。我们发现，感染的处方率和费用(全国：5.58%，RCPG RSC：7.12%)以及营养和血液状况(全国：6.26%，RCPG RSC：4.50%)存在差异。2岁 患者的疫苗接种率存在差异(全国：38.5%，RCPG RSC：32.8%)。由于人数较多，多数差异显著(p<；0.00015)。RCGP RSC是一个具有代表性的网络，与全国人口只有很小的差异，这些人口现在已经被量化，可以评估其与特定研究的临床相关性。这个网络是对日常实践进行研究的丰富来源。
The Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP RSC) is one of the longest established primary care sentinel networks. In 2015, it established a new data and analysis hub at the University of Surrey. This paper evaluates the representativeness of the RCGP RSC network against the English population. The cohort includes 1 042 063 patients registered in 107 participating general practitioner (GP) practices. We compared the RCGP RSC data with English national data in the following areas: demographics; geographical distribution; chronic disease prevalence, management and completeness of data recording; and prescribing and vaccine uptake. We also assessed practices within the network participating in a national swabbing programme. We found a small over-representation of people in the 25–44 age band, under-representation of white ethnicity, and of less deprived people. Geographical focus is in London, with less practices in the southwest and east of England. We found differences in the prevalence of diabetes (national: 6.4%, RCPG RSC: 5.8%), learning disabilities (national: 0.44%, RCPG RSC: 0.40%), obesity (national: 9.2%, RCPG RSC: 8.0%), pulmonary disease (national: 1.8%, RCPG RSC: 1.6%), and cardiovascular diseases (national: 1.1%, RCPG RSC: 1.2%). Data completeness in risk factors for diabetic population is high (77–99%). We found differences in prescribing rates and costs for infections (national: 5.58%, RCPG RSC: 7.12%), and for nutrition and blood conditions (national: 6.26%, RCPG RSC: 4.50%). Differences in vaccine uptake were seen in patients aged 2 years (national: 38.5%, RCPG RSC: 32.8%). Owing to large numbers, most differences were significant (p<0.00015). The RCGP RSC is a representative network, having only small differences with the national population, which have now been quantified and can be assessed for clinical relevance for specific studies. This network is a rich source for research into routine practice.