Objectives: To investigate associations between costs and remuneration for cervical screening in general practice in relation to skill mix, features of practice structure and deprivation levels in the local area; and, to identify efficient policies for organising cervical screening in general practice.
Method: Questionnaire survey and interview study in 87 general practices in Greater Glasgow Health Board an area in the west of Scotland which covers a socio-economically varied population. The main outcome measures were remuneration to cost ratios (RCRs) for cervical screening and their natural logarithms (logRCRs).
Results: Both the costs of cervical screening and RCRs varied widely between the 87 practices taking part. RCRs ranged from 0.29 to 14.67 (mean 2.64, median 2.18, interquartile range 1.15-2.98). Twenty-one per cent (18) of practices earned less than they spent on the organisation of screening, whilst 9% (8) of practices had PCRs of more than 5:1. RCRs were significantly lower if medical staff were involved in either taking smears or dealing with results. RCRs did not vary by social deprivation score, despite uptake being lower in practices in more deprived areas. This was explained by nurses working in practices in deprived areas being more likely to take smears than nurses working in more affluent areas. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken, altering key time and cost assumptions. As a result, the absolute values of the RCRs changed, although the overall pattern of association did not, with the exception of doctor involvement in processing results which was no longer significant when average general practitioners' income was substituted for locum rates.
Conclusions: Practices in deprived areas may be responding to greater pressure of work by making optimal use of skill mix within the primary health care team. A more graduated incentive payment scheme may more fairly reward practices in deprived areas which are less likely to achieve 80% uptake due to relatively intractable features of practice structure. Assuming that practice nurses provide an equivalent quality of service to that provided by general practitioners, results suggest that doctor-nurse substitution would be cost-effective for general practice based cervical screening. Resource savings (principally doctor's time) could be redeployed to other areas of primary health care.