COMPLEMENTARY THERAPY
IN GENERAL PRACTICE

SUMMARY


The Glastonbury Health Centre has been offering patients the opportunity to receive complementary medical treatment since 1992.

Between 1994 and 1997, a systematic evaluation was carried out to discover what benefits patients received from these therapies, and what contribution the service made to the overall running of the practice.

Between these dates, around 600 patients were referred to the service (around 17% of the practice population), the majority of referrals being for patients with chronic health conditions, particularly problems related to muscles and joints.  Over a third (34%) were referred because their problem had failed to respond to more conventional treatments.

The evaluation showed that 85% of patients referred to the service reported some or much improvement in their condition following treatment, an improvement that the majority ascribed to the treatment itself.  A similar number reported themselves to be very happy with the service:  85% indicated that they were either very, or mostly satisfied with the treatment that they had received.

The practitioners themselves rated 11% of the problems treated as being very much improved or resolved, with a further 57% of the patients as showing some improvement in their condition following treatment.  Scores on the SF36 Health and Well-being scale also showed a significant improvement for the majority of patients following treatment.

Results indicated that complementary therapies had been particularly effective for patients who had shorter-term, or more severe conditions on referral, and had generally been very effective in relieving pain and physical discomfort for patients with musculo-skeletal problems.  It had also made a contribution to relieving social and emotional distress in patients with psycho-social problems, and in improving the general health and wellbeing of patients with other kinds of problem.

A cost-benefit study of the use of the service by a subsample of patients with long-term health problems, indicated that cost-savings had been achieved through a reduction of referrals to secondary care, and a reduction in usage of other health services (GP time, prescriptions, X-rays and other tests) in the year following complementary medicine treatment.  Cost savings from these sources would have almost matched the cost of the treatments provided by the complementary health service.

The present report provides the results of this evaluation.  First of all, the service itself and the research are described.  In the second section, a description is given of the patients referred, and the benefit they derived from treatment; in the third section, the advantages and disadvantages to the practice of having the service are described; and section four outlines the cost-benefits of the service.  Finally, some conclusions are drawn, speculating on the likely implications of this study for further inclusion of complementary therapies in general practice.

NEXT PAGE