EVALUATION OF DEATH REGISTERS IN GENERAL-PRACTICE

Background. General practitioners (GPs) do not routinely receive infor mation about the deaths of those patients whose death certificates the y have not completed. We developed and evaluated a system for producin g death registers for GPs. Aim. To evaluate GPs' and practice managers ' views on, and uses of, the death register. Method. General practitio ners in Newcastle (n = 161) and Sunderland Family Health Service Autho rity (n = 144) areas were sent a questionnaire on their sources and us e of information about patients' deaths. Death registers were sent to Newcastle practices; Sunderland practices were the control group. A fo llow-up questionnaire was sent to Newcastle (n = 173) and Sunderland ( n = 140) GPs after two years. Newcastle practice managers (n = 45) wer e interviewed after their practice had received death registers for on e year. Results. Ninety-two per cent of Newcastle responders had seen the death register. Seventy-three per cent saw it regularly. Of those who saw it, 92% found it useful for communication within the primary h ealth care team, bereavement follow-up, and administration and medical audit One fifth of GPs named the death register as their first source of information about their patients' deaths. Newcastle GPs reported g reater levels of change in use of patient death information than the c ontrol group. Practice managers circulated, used, and recorded informa tion from the death register. Conclusion. Death registers are valued a nd have demonstrable benefits with regard to administration, bereaveme nt care, and medical audit.