Abstract：
BACKGROUND: UK general practice surgeries collect data regarding patient ethnicities, typically at registration. These data are subsequently used in both clinical care and research, for example, when embedded in risk modelling tools. The published standard list of ethnic categories exists, but little is known about what happens in frontline practice.
OBJECTIVE: To document the variation in ethnic categories available on online patient registration forms across GP surgeries in Oxfordshire.
METHODS: Of all 67 GP surgeries in Oxfordshire, 56 had online registration forms that included an option list for ethnicity reporting. The authors compared these against the 2001, 2011, and 2021 UK census ethnic group categorisation.
RESULTS: Significant heterogeneity was identified across practices. The number of options for ethnicity group ranged from 5 to 84, with a median of 14, compared to the census lists that comprise of 19 (2021), 18 (2011), and 16 (2001) groups. Of the 56 practices, six used the 2001 census list, five used the 2011 census list, and none used the 2021 census list. Overall, 45 practices used lists that differed from any census list, including categories not typically considered to be ethnic, for example \'Muslim\' or \'Buddhist\', meaning individuals could potentially identify with multiple options.
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality research and healthcare data that includes patient ethnicity is essential to understand, document, and mitigate against health inequalities. However, this may be compromised by poorly conceived ethnic categorisations and a lack of standardisation. This pilot/exploratory study suggests that the ethnicity records in primary health care may be neither standardised nor meaningful.
OBJECTIVE: To document the variation in ethnic categories available on online patient registration forms across GP surgeries in Oxfordshire.
METHODS: Of all 67 GP surgeries in Oxfordshire, 56 had online registration forms that included an option list for ethnicity reporting. The authors compared these against the 2001, 2011, and 2021 UK census ethnic group categorisation.
RESULTS: Significant heterogeneity was identified across practices. The number of options for ethnicity group ranged from 5 to 84, with a median of 14, compared to the census lists that comprise of 19 (2021), 18 (2011), and 16 (2001) groups. Of the 56 practices, six used the 2001 census list, five used the 2011 census list, and none used the 2021 census list. Overall, 45 practices used lists that differed from any census list, including categories not typically considered to be ethnic, for example \'Muslim\' or \'Buddhist\', meaning individuals could potentially identify with multiple options.
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality research and healthcare data that includes patient ethnicity is essential to understand, document, and mitigate against health inequalities. However, this may be compromised by poorly conceived ethnic categorisations and a lack of standardisation. This pilot/exploratory study suggests that the ethnicity records in primary health care may be neither standardised nor meaningful.
摘要：
背景：英国全科手术收集有关患者种族的数据，通常在注册。这些数据随后被用于临床护理和研究，例如,当嵌入风险建模工具中时。已发布的种族类别标准列表存在，但是对前线练习中发生的事情知之甚少。
目的：记录Oxfordshire全科医生手术的在线患者登记表上提供的种族类别的变化。
方法：在牛津郡的所有67例GP手术中，56人拥有在线注册表格，其中包括种族报告的选项列表。作者将这些与2001年，2011年和2021年英国人口普查种族分类进行了比较。
结果：在不同的实践中发现了显著的异质性。种族组的选择数量从5个到84个，中位数为14个，而人口普查名单为19个（2021年），18(2011),和16个(2001年)团体。在56种做法中，六人使用了2001年的人口普查清单，五个人使用了2011年的人口普查清单，没有人使用2021年的人口普查清单。总的来说,45种做法使用了不同于任何人口普查清单的清单，包括通常不被认为是种族的类别，例如\“穆斯林\”或\“佛教\”，这意味着个人可能会认同多种选择。
结论：包括患者种族在内的高质量研究和医疗保健数据对于理解，文档,并减轻健康不平等。然而,这可能会受到错误的种族分类和缺乏标准化的影响。这项试点/探索性研究表明，初级卫生保健中的种族记录可能既不标准化也没有意义。
目的：记录Oxfordshire全科医生手术的在线患者登记表上提供的种族类别的变化。
方法：在牛津郡的所有67例GP手术中，56人拥有在线注册表格，其中包括种族报告的选项列表。作者将这些与2001年，2011年和2021年英国人口普查种族分类进行了比较。
结果：在不同的实践中发现了显著的异质性。种族组的选择数量从5个到84个，中位数为14个，而人口普查名单为19个（2021年），18(2011),和16个(2001年)团体。在56种做法中，六人使用了2001年的人口普查清单，五个人使用了2011年的人口普查清单，没有人使用2021年的人口普查清单。总的来说,45种做法使用了不同于任何人口普查清单的清单，包括通常不被认为是种族的类别，例如\“穆斯林\”或\“佛教\”，这意味着个人可能会认同多种选择。
结论：包括患者种族在内的高质量研究和医疗保健数据对于理解，文档,并减轻健康不平等。然而,这可能会受到错误的种族分类和缺乏标准化的影响。这项试点/探索性研究表明，初级卫生保健中的种族记录可能既不标准化也没有意义。
