{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017189079878665317, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023255813953488372, 'mean_word_length': 5.07361963190184, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
General practice morbidity monitoring.

ANALYSIS of morbidity of hospital inpatients has been available in England and Wales since 1957 where samples of one in ten admissions have been used, whereas in Scotland 100 per cent coverage has been available since 1961 (Kirk 1970). In contrast morbidity figures for general practice have come from surveys over limited periods. For example a survey (Ashford 1969) is described which covered a year's work of the majority of practitioners in the city of Exeter. While surveys undoubtedly yield useful information a more reliable picture could be built up from total continuous records. For one thing changes in pattern become easier to forecast and for another comparison between hospital and general practice can be made more meaningful. Dinwoodie (1970) showed how simplified methods could enable one doctor to record continuously for an unlimited time. In this paper Dinwoodie's methods have been extended to apply to a group general practice.