Dataset Information

Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

General practices in England have been encouraged to introduce Advanced Access, but there is no robust evidence that this is associated with improved access in ways that matter to patients.

Aim

To compare priorities and experiences of patients consulting in practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access.

Design of study

Patient questionnaire survey.

Setting

Forty-seven practices in 12 primary care trust areas of England.

Method

Questionnaire administered when patients consulted.

Results

Of 12,825 eligible patients, 10,821 (84%) responded. Most (70%) were consulting about a problem they had had for at least 'a few weeks'. Patients obtained their current appointment sooner in Advanced Access practices, but were less likely to have been able to book in advance. They could usually see a doctor more quickly than those in control practices, but were no more satisfied overall with the appointment system. The top priority for patients was to be seen on a day of choice rather than to be seen quickly, but different patient groups had different priorities. Patients in Advanced Access practices were no more or less likely to obtain an appointment that matched their priorities than those in control practices. Patients in both types of practice experienced problems making contact by telephone.

Conclusion

Patients are seen more quickly in Advanced Access practices, but speed of access is less important to patients than choice of appointment; this may be because most consultations are about long-standing problems. Appointment systems need to be flexible to accommodate the different needs of different patient groups.

SUBMITTER: Salisbury C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2099666 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.

Salisbury Chris C Goodall Stephen S Montgomery Alan A AA Pickin D Mark DM Edwards Sarah S Sampson Fiona F Simons Lucy L Lattimer Val V

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 20070801 541

<h4>Background</h4>General practices in England have been encouraged to introduce Advanced Access, but there is no robust evidence that this is associated with improved access in ways that matter to patients.<h4>Aim</h4>To compare priorities and experiences of patients consulting in practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access.<h4>Design of study</h4>Patient questionnaire survey.<h4>Setting</h4>Forty-seven practices in 12 primary care trust areas of England.<h4>Method</h4>Questionnaire a ...[more]

PMID: 17688755

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveAccess to health care is a universal concern. Therefore, this study was conducted to develop a questionnaire to assess the Perceived Access to Health care based on Penchansky and Thomas's definition of access and the assessment of its psychometric properties.MethodThe initial questionnaire contains 31 items developed based on a deductive approach with an extensive review of the related literature. Content validity, face validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and instrument reliability were further examined. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software version 24, R software version 4, and lavaan package.ResultsThe initial questionnaire was examined using qualitative content validity, and the necessary modifications were applied to each item. The content validity ratio (CVR) was approved in 30 items with a value greater than 0.78, and one item with a CVR value lower than 0.78 was removed. In the case of the content validity index (CVI), 29 items were approved with a CVI value of greater than 0.79, and one item with a CVI value between 0.70 and 0.79 was revised. In qualitative face validity, all items were approved by a panel of experts and the participants. All 30 items with an impact score index higher than 1.5 were approved for the next steps. The confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the six-factor model of access to health care has an appropriate fit. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the questionnaire was calculated 0.86. The value of Cronbach's alpha for the dimensions of availability, accessibility, affordability, accommodation, acceptability, and awareness were 0.61, 0.76, 0.66, 0.60, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively. The Intraclass Correlation Index (ICC) value for reliability (test-retest) of the whole instrument was calculated 0.94 using the two-way mixed absolute agreement method.ConclusionThe success of health programs depends on eliminating barriers to access to provided health care services. One of the most critical barriers to understanding access is a perception of limited access. This questionnaire might be used further to understand perceived health care access in different global contexts.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to validate a new generic patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), among a diverse sample of health and social care users in England. DESIGN:Cross-sectional validation survey. Data were collected through postal surveys (February 2016-January 2017). The sample included a healthcare cohort of patients recruited through primary care practices, and a social care cohort recruited through local government bodies that provide social care services. PARTICIPANTS:1211 participants (24% confirmed social care recipients) took part in the study. Healthcare participants were recruited on the basis of having one of 11 specified long-term conditions (LTCs), and social care participants were recruited on the basis of receiving social care support for at least one LTC. The sample exhibited high multimorbidity, with 93% reporting two or more LTCs and 43% reporting a mental health condition. OUTCOME MEASURES:The LTCQ's construct validity was tested with reference to the EQ-5D (5-level version), the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale, an Activities of Daily Living scale and the Bayliss burden of morbidity scale. RESULTS:Low levels of missing data for each item indicate acceptability of the LTCQ across the sample. The LTCQ exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach's ?=0.95) across the scale's 20 items and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.94, 95%?CI 0.93 to 0.95). Associations between the LTCQ and all reference measures were moderate to strong and in the expected directions, indicating convergent construct validity. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the LTCQ, which has potential for use in both health and social care settings. The LTCQ could meet a need for holistic outcome measurement that goes beyond symptoms and physical function, complementing existing measures to capture fully what it means to live well with LTCs.

Project description:BackgroundPatient safety is a universal issue which affects countries at all stages of health system development. Patient safety research in primary care reveals that globally millions of people suffer disabilities, injuries, or death due to unsafe medical practices. This study aims to explore the understanding of frontline primary health care professionals regarding patient safety culture in health care facilities in Oman.MethodsA questionnaire-based survey was conducted using a validated Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture tool. Invitations were sent to all 198 health professionals from each occupational category from each primary care center in Muscat, Oman.ResultsThe total number of respondents was 186 participants out of 198 (response rate: 94%). Overall, the staff had a strong sense of teamwork within the units (85%), they reported organization learning for continuous improvement (84%) and teamwork across the units (82%). However, the four dimensions which received the lowest scores were related to communication problems between the staff (23%), non-punitive response to errors (27%), frequency of event reporting (40%), and errors occurring when transferring patients to higher levels of health care during handoffs and transitions (46%).ConclusionsOverall, the participants rated patient safety in the primary health care setting as excellent or very good and the perception of patient safety was moderately positive. The core areas of strength were teamwork within the units with positivity and organization learning and continuous improvement. The weaknesses were non-punitive response to errors, inadequate staffing and hand offs and transition. The results of this study will provide policy makers and health care professionals with a detailed understanding of the current patient safety culture in primary care in Muscat, Oman. The results will be used by the Ministry of Health to inform policy and strategies to strengthen patient safety within primary health care in Oman.

Dataset Information

Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.

Background

Aim

Design of study

Setting

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets