Tools for the job.

THIS study is a follow-up of earlier reports on general practice by Collings (1950), Hadfield (1953) and Taylor (1954) and focusses on the doctor's tools just as the recent investigation by Eimerl and Pearson (1966) followed up the earlier classic of Bradford Hill to see what changes there had been since his report on the doctors' work-week was published in 1951. A large number of other studies, reported on in 1965, indicate that the general practitioner probably handles at least three quarters of his daily work without reference to hospital or other consultative services and that there is a wide variation by individual doctors in the general practice uptake of professional aid; for example about three quarters of the use of direct access diagnostic pathology and radiology is mainly by about one fifth of all practitioners (Godber 1959, Eimerl 1960). Collings reported the principal equipment of 104 practitioners visited: Stethoscope, thermometer, tongue depressor, sphygmomanometer, syringes and needles; usually also an auroscope, opthalmoscope, proctoscope, vaginal speculum and a varying range of other instruments. He noted the absence of first-aid kit. Stephen Taylor visited 94 doctors rated highly by their colleagues; basic tools noted were stethoscope, auroscope, opthalmoscope (simple May type), syringes, sutures and, maybe, proctoscope, vaginal speculum, microscope, centrifuge and haemoglobinometer. Hadfield (1953) went to see a representative sample of 188 practices and opined that 91 per