{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030232558139534883, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01317829457364341, 'mean_word_length': 4.949308755760368, '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}}
['Minor' surgical interventions and treatment of minor lesions in family practice].

A prospective study was performed of 'minor' surgical interventions and treatment of minor injuries in a catchment area of six GPs with approx. 14,250 patients. This group of GPs was studied with regard to: the pattern of items of service and referrals, adherence to working arrangements made and the results of the treatment. Prior to this investigation, after a pilot study general guidelines for the treatment were drawn up. During a 6-month period 574 patients were treated, of whom 45 (7.9%) went directly to the emergency department of Maastricht University Hospital. Fifty five patients (9.6%) were referred by the GP in the first or second instance. Working arrangements on pathological examination of skin tumours were kept relatively well, those on tetanus prophylaxis only fairly well. The treatment of minor injuries and the performance of minor operations, mostly excision of skin tumours, gave good results in approx. 90% of the cases. The results of treatment of panaritium was poor. Since GPs, especially those in rural areas, have to perform minor operations and treat small injuries frequently, adequate attention should continue to be paid to practical training of GPs in minor surgery.