Setting standards based on patients' views on access and continuity: secondary analysis of data from the general practice assessment survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bower P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC140766 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Setting standards based on patients' views on access and continuity: secondary analysis of data from the general practice assessment survey.
Bower Peter P Roland Martin M Campbell John J Mead Nicola N
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20030201 7383
<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine patients' views on access and continuity in general practice to derive quality standards.<h4>Design</h4>Secondary analysis of data from general practice research studies and routine quality assessment activities undertaken by practices and primary care trusts.<h4>Setting</h4>General practice.<h4>Participants</h4>General practice patients.<h4>Results</h4>Satisfactory standards of access were next day appointments with general practitioners and a 6-10 minute wait for ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe desire of patients for personal continuity of care with a General Practitioner (GP) has been well documented, but not within non-registered private patients in Ireland. This study set out to examine the attitudes and reported behaviours of private fee-paying patients towards continuity of GP care and universal registration for patients.MethodsCross-sectional telephone survey of 400 randomly chosen fee-paying patients living within County Dublin. There is no formal system of registration with a GP for these patients. Main outcomes were attendance of respondents at primary health care facilities and their attitudes towards continuity of care and registration with a GP. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and using parametric and non-parametric tests of association. Pearson correlation was used to quantify the association between the described variables and attitudes towards continuity and registration with a GP. Variables showing significance at the 5% level were entered into multiple linear regression models.Results97% of respondents had seen a GP in the previous 5 years. The mean number of visits to the GP for respondents was 2.3 per annum. 89% of respondents had a regular GP and the mean length of time with their GP was 15.6 years. 96% preferred their personal medical care to be provided within one general practice. 16% of respondents had consulted a GP outside of their own practice in the previous year. They were more likely to be female, commute a longer distance to work or have poorer health status. 81% considered it important to be officially registered with a GP practice of their choice.ConclusionBoth personal and longitudinal continuity of care with a GP are important to private patients. Respondents who chose to visit GPs other than their regular GP were not easily characterised in this study and individual circumstances may lead to this behaviour. There is strong support for a system of universal patient registration within general practice.
| S-EPMC1851962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdvanced Access has been strongly promoted as a means of improving access to general practice. Key principles include measuring demand, matching capacity to demand, managing demand in different ways and having contingency plans. Although not advocated by Advanced Access, some practices have also restricted availability of pre-booked appointments.AimThis study compares the strategies used to improve access by practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access.Design of studyPostal survey of practices.SettingThree hundred and ninety-one practices in 12 primary care trusts.MethodQuestionnaires were posted to practice managers to collect data on practice characteristics, supply and demand of appointments, strategies employed to manage demand, and use of Advanced Access.ResultsTwo hundred and forty-five from 391 (63%) practices returned a questionnaire and 162/241(67%) claimed to be using Advanced Access. There were few differences between characteristics of practices operating Advanced Access or not. Both types of practice had introduced a wide range of measures to improve access. The proportion of doctors' appointments only available for booking on the same day was higher in Advanced Access practices (40 versus 16%, difference = 24%, 95% CI = 16% to 32%). Less than half the practices claiming to operate Advanced Access ((63/140; 45%) used all four of this model's key principles.ConclusionThe majority of practices in this sample claim to have introduced Advanced Access, but the degree of implementation is very variable. Advanced Access practices use more initiatives to measure and improve access than non-Advanced Access practices.
| S-EPMC1934051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.
| S-EPMC8759266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").MethodsIn March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.ResultsOf 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.ConclusionsThis study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.
| S-EPMC9996425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGeneral practice data, particularly when combined with hospital and other health service data through data linkage, are increasingly being used for quality assurance, evaluation, health service planning and research. In this study, we explored community views on sharing general practice data for secondary purposes, including research, to establish what concerns and conditions need to be addressed in the process of developing a social licence to support such use.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach with focus groups (November-December 2021), followed by a cross-sectional survey (March-April 2022).ResultsThe participants in this study strongly supported sharing general practice data with the clinicians responsible for their care, and where there were direct benefits for individual patients. Over 90% of survey participants (N = 2604) were willing to share their general practice information to directly support their health care, that is, for the primary purpose of collection. There was less support for sharing data for secondary purposes such as research and health service planning (36% and 45% respectively in broad agreement) or for linking general practice data to data in the education, social services and criminal justice systems (30%-36%). A substantial minority of participants were unsure or could not see how benefits would arise from sharing data for secondary purposes. Participants were concerned about the potential for privacy breaches, discrimination and data misuse and they wanted greater transparency and an opportunity to consent to data release.ConclusionThe findings of this study suggest that the public may be more concerned about sharing general practice data for secondary purposes than they are about sharing data collected in other settings. Sharing general practice data more broadly will require careful attention to patient and public concerns, including focusing on the factors that will sustain trust and legitimacy in general practice and GPs.Patient and public contributionMembers of the public were participants in the study. Data produced from their participation generated study findings.Clinical trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC10869884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPersonal continuity is a core value for family practice, but policy and performance targets emphasise other aspects of care, particularly waiting times for consultation. This study examined patient and general practitioner (GP) perceptions of the value of personal continuity and rapid access, and the relationship between them.MethodsQualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 16 GPs and 32 patients in the Lothian region of Scotland, to identify whether, how, why and in which circumstances personal continuity and rapid access were valued.ResultsFrom the patients' perspective, what mattered was 'access to appropriate care' depending on the problem to be dealt with. For a few patients, rapid access was the only priority. For most, rapid access was balanced against greater involvement in the consultation when seeing 'their' trusted doctor, which was particularly valued for chronic, complex and emotional problems. GPs focused on the value of personal continuity in the consultation for improving the diagnosis and management of the same kinds of problem. GPs did not perceive enabling access to be a core part of their work. There was little evidence that GPs routinely discussed with patients when or how personal continuity and access should be balanced.Conclusion'Access to appropriate care' from the patients' perspective is not fully addressed by GPs' focus on personal continuity, nor by performance targets focused only on speed of access. GPs need to make enabling access as much a part of their core values as personal continuity, and access targets need to be based on less simplistic measures that account for the appropriateness of care as well as speed of access.
| S-EPMC1413534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsidering the changes in dental healthcare, such as the increasing assertiveness of patients, the introduction of new dental professionals, and regulated competition, it becomes more important that general dental practitioners (GDPs) take patients' views into account. The aim of the study was to compare patients' views on organizational aspects of general dental practices with those of GDPs and with GDPs' estimation of patients' views.MethodsIn a survey study, patients and GDPs provided their views on organizational aspects of a general dental practice. In a second, separate survey, GDPs were invited to estimate patients' views on 22 organizational aspects of a general dental practice.ResultsFor 4 of the 22 aspects, patients and GDPs had the same views, and GDPs estimated patients' views reasonably well: 'Dutch-speaking GDP', 'guarantee on treatment', 'treatment by the same GDP', and 'reminder of routine oral examination'. For 2 aspects ('quality assessment' and 'accessibility for disabled patients') patients and GDPs had the same standards, although the GDPs underestimated the patients' standards. Patients had higher standards than GDPs for 7 aspects and lower standards than GDPs for 8 aspects.ConclusionOn most aspects GDPs and patient have different views, except for social desirable aspects. Given the increasing assertiveness of patients, it is startling the GDP's estimated only half of the patients' views correctly. The findings of the study can assist GDPs in adapting their organizational services to better meet the preferences of their patients and to improve the communication towards patients.
| S-EPMC3204231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh continuity of care is a key feature of strong general practice. This study aimed to assess the effect of a programme for enhancing strong general practice care on the continuity of care in Germany. The second aim was to assess the effect of continuity of care on hospitalization patterns.MethodsWe performed an observational study in Germany, involving patients who received a strong general practice care programme (n=1.037.075) and patients who did not receive this programme (n=723.127) in the year 2017. We extracted data from a health insurance database. The cohorts were compared with respect to three measures of continuity of care (Usual Provider Index, Herfindahl Index, and the Sequential Continuity Index), adjusted for patient characteristics. The effects of continuity in general practice on the rates of hospitalization, rehospitalization, and avoidable hospitalization were examined in multiple regression analyses.ResultsCompared to the control cohort, continuity in general practice was higher in patients who received the programme (continuity measures were 12.47 to 23.76% higher, P< 0.0001). Higher continuity of care was independently associated with lowered risk of hospitalization, rehospitalization, and avoidable hospitalization (relative risk reductions between 2.45 and 9.74%, P< 0.0001). Higher age, female sex, higher morbidity (Charlson-index), and home-dwelling status (not nursing home) were associated with higher rates of hospitalization.ConclusionHigher continuity of care may be one of the mechanisms underlying lower hospitalization rates in patients who received strong general practice care, but further research is needed to examine the causality underlying the associations.
| S-EPMC7809859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Accreditation is a widely adopted tool for quality control and quality improvement in health care, which has increasingly been employed for general practice. However, there is lack of knowledge of how accreditation is received and experienced by health professionals in general practice. This study explores how general practitioners (GPs) and their staff experienced the comprehensibility of accreditation standards and how they worked to increase their understanding of the standards. The study was conducted in Denmark where accreditation was mandatory in general practice from 2016 to 2018. METHODS:The study consists of qualitative interviews with general practitioners and staff from 11 general practices that were strategically sampled among practices set to receive their survey visit in 2017. Participants were interviewed twice; once during the preparation phase and once after the survey visit. GPs and staff were interviewed separately. The interviews were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Understanding the requirements of the accreditation standards was a major challenge for the professionals when preparing for the accreditation survey visit. The participants attempted to increase their understanding of the standards in several ways including the use of regional support options and seeking out experts and colleagues. However, participants had mixed experiences with the various support options and many found the sense making work frustrating and time consuming. CONCLUSION:The results point to the importance of considering the level of specificity in accreditation standards and how to ensure an organisational set-up that can offer appropriate support to primary care clinics in terms of understanding what is required to meet the standards.
| S-EPMC6354356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPharmacist services in general practice are expanding worldwide, with evidence to show pharmacists' presence in general practice has financial, workload, and clinical benefits. Yet, little is known globally about general practitioners' (GPs') views on their presence in general practice.ObjectiveTo synthesize the qualitative research evidence on GPs' views of pharmacist services in general practice.MethodsQualitative evidence synthesis; 8 electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2021 for qualitative studies that reported the views of GPs regarding pharmacist services in general practice. Data from included studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach was used to assess the confidence in individual review findings.ResultsNineteen studies were included, which captured the views of 159 GPs from 8 different countries. Four analytical themes describing the factors that should be considered in the development or optimization of pharmacist services in general practice, based on the views of GPs, were developed from the coded data and descriptive themes: (i) optimal environment for a pharmacist, (ii) the ideal pharmacist characteristics, (iii) complex stakeholder relationships, and (iv) benefits of an effective pharmacist.ConclusionBased on the synthesis of GPs' views, we have created a conceptual model of factors that should be considered by policymakers, GPs, pharmacists, and other relevant stakeholders when developing or optimizing pharmacist services in general practice going forward.
| S-EPMC9295606 | biostudies-literature