• Marjan Kljakovic, Karen Ciszek, Graham Reynolds, and Samuel Colman.
• Academic Unit of General Practice and Community Health, School of General Practice, Rural and Indigenous Health, Australian National University Medical School, PO Box 11 Woden, ACT 2606, Australia. marjan.kljakovic@anu.edu.au
• Bmc Fam Pract. 2011 Sep 30; 12: 106.

BackgroundThere is little published on provider continuity in Australian general practice and none on its effect on inequality of care for children.MethodQuestionnaire administered to parents of the ACT Kindergarten Health Screen asking the name of their child's usual GP and practice address between 2001 and 2008.ResultsParents of 30,789 children named 433 GPs and 141 practices. In each year, an average of 77% of parents could name both the GP and the practice, an average of 11% of parents could name only the practice, and an average of 12% of parents could name neither. In each year, 25% of parents could not name a usual GP for children of Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander descent, or children born outside of Australia, compared to 10% of all other children (p = < 0.0001). The frequency of GPs displaying continuity of care varied over time with 19% of GPs being present in the ACT in only one year and 39% of GPs being present in every year over the eight years of study. GPs displayed two different forms of transience either by working in more than one practice in each year (5% of GPs), or by not being present in the ACT region from one year to the next (15% of GPs). Fewer parents nominated transient GPs as their child's GP compared to choosing GPs who displayed continuity (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMany GPs (39%) were reported to provide continuity of care for in the ACT region and some GPs (20%) displayed transient care. Indigenous children or children born outside of Australia had less equity of access to a nominated GP than all other children. Such inequity might disappear if voluntary registration of children was adopted in Australian general practice.

22 keywords...

hide…