Responses to homeopathic treatment in National Health Service general practice

Abstract

Objective: To assess homeopathic consultations in NHS general practice over a 12-month study period; to analyse the conditions treated homeopathically and assess the responses to homeopathy prescribed in a standard 10 min GP consultation.

Methods: Data on each homeopathic consultation over 12 months were recorded: including patient details; condition/diagnosis; response score; prescribed medicine; prescribing strategy; medical speciality category. Clinical response was scored using a modified version of the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital Outcome Scale.

Results: Over the 12-month study period, a total of 5331 consultations were conducted within the general practice; 489 (9%) of these consultations were homeopathic. A wide variety of conditions were treated homeopathically, 78% of patients had a positive clinical response, 19% no response, 3% negative response. Analysis of the prescribing strategies demonstrated that 73% of the homeopathic prescriptions were issued using the ‘problem-based’ strategy. The remainder were ‘patient-based’ (19%), ‘context-based’ (4%) and ‘combined’ (4%) strategies.

Conclusions: This study illustrates the varied and successful application of homeopathy within the general practice setting. Response scores reveal the beneficial effects of homeopathic treatment. This study supports the use of homeopathy within NHS general practice, delivered in a 10 min consultation.

Keywords

homeopathy - general practice - effectiveness - consultation time - NHS - private practice

• References

• 1 Swayne J. Data collection and research in homoeopathic medicine. Br Hom J 1986; 75: 157-161.
• 2 Clover A. Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 68-72.
• 3 Richardson W. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool regional department of homeopathic medicine. Br Hom J 2001; 90: 158-162.
• 4 Neville-Smith R. Community Hospital Homeopathy Clinic: audit of the first 12 months activity. Br Hom J 1999; 88: 20-23.
• 5 Reilly D, Duncan R, Bikker A, Heirs M. Development of The GHHOS, The IDCCIM Action Research, … The PC-HICOM Project. Interim Report, February 2003. http://www.adhom.org.
• 6 Downey P. Audit of prescribing style and outcomes in general practice. Br Hom J 1996; 85: 71-74.
• 7 Pratt N. Case records in general practice. Br Hom J 1993; 82: 16-21.
• 8 Sevar R. Audit of outcome in 829 consecutive patients treated with homeopathic medicines. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 178-187.
• 9 Steinsbekk A., Ludtke R. Patients’ assessments of the effectiveness of homeopathic care in Norway: a prospective observational multicentre outcome study. Homeopathy 2005; 94: 10-16.
• 10 Slade K., Chohan B., Barker P. Evaluation of a GP practice based homeopathy service. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 67-70.
• 11 Colin P. An epidemiological study of a homeopathic practice. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 116-121.
• 12 Steinsbekk A., Fønnebo V. Users of homeopaths in Norway in 1998, compared to previous users and GP patients. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 3-10.
• 13 Trichard M., Lamure E., Chaufferin G. Study of the practice of homeopathic General Practitioners in France. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 135-139.
• 14 Van Wassenhoven M., Ives G. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 3-11.
• 15 Jain A. Does homeopathy reduce the cost of conventional drug prescribing? A study of comparative prescribing costs in general practice. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 71-76.
• 16 Swayne J. Homeopathic Method: Implications for Clinical Practice and Medical Science. Edinburgh UK: Churchill Livingstone; 1998.
• 17 Reid S. A survey of the use of over-the-counter homeopathic medicines purchased in health stores in central Manchester. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 225-229.
• 18 Kayne S. A study of remedies prescribed at Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. Br Hom J 1998; 87: 190-194.
• 19 Kayne S. Survey of buyers of homeopathic medicines. Pharm J 1999; 263: 210-212.