Sharon Leitch, Susan M Dovey, Ari Samaranayaka, David M Reith, Katharine A Wallis, Kyle S Eggleton, Andrew W McMenamin, Wayne K Cunningham, Martyn I Williamson, Steven Lillis, Murray W Tilyard

INTRODUCTION Practice size and location may affect the quality and safety of health care. Little is known about contemporary New Zealand general practice characteristics in terms of staffing, ownership and services. AIM To describe and compare the characteristics of small, medium and large general practices in rural and urban New Zealand. METHODS Seventy-two general practices were randomly selected from the 2014 Primary Health Organisation database and invited to participate in a records review study. Forty-five recruited practices located throughout New Zealand provided data on staff, health-care services and practice ownership. Chi-square and other non-parametric statistical analyses were used to compare practices. RESULTS The 45 study practices constituted 4.6% of New Zealand practices. Rural practices were located further from the nearest regional base hospital (rural median 65.0 km, urban 7.5 km (P < 0.001)), nearest local hospital (rural 25.7 km, urban 7.0 km (P = 0.002)) and nearest neighbouring general practitioner (GP) (rural 16.0 km, urban 1.0 km (P = 0.007)). In large practices, there were more enrolled patients per GP FTE than both medium-sized and small practices (mean 1827 compared to 1457 and 1120 respectively, P = 0.019). Nurses in large practices were more likely to insert intravenous lines (P = 0.026) and take blood (P = 0.049). There were no significant differences in practice ownership arrangements according to practice size or rurality. CONCLUSION Study practices were relatively homogenous. Unsurprisingly, rural practices were further away from hospitals. Larger practices had higher patient-to-doctor ratios and increased nursing scope. The study sample is small; findings need to be confirmed by specifically powered research.