Dataset Information

What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To examine patient consultation preferences for seeing or speaking to a general practitioner (GP) or nurse; to estimate associations between patient-reported experiences and the type of consultation patients actually received (phone or face-to-face, GP or nurse). DESIGN:Secondary analysis of data from the 2013 to 2014 General Practice Patient Survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:870?085 patients from 8005 English general practices. OUTCOMES:Patient ratings of communication and 'trust and confidence' with the clinician they saw. RESULTS:77.7% of patients reported wanting to see or speak to a GP, while 14.5% reported asking to see or speak to a nurse the last time they tried to make an appointment (weighted percentages). Being unable to see or speak to the practitioner type of the patients' choice was associated with lower ratings of trust and confidence and patient-rated communication. Smaller differences were found if patients wanted a face-to-face consultation and received a phone consultation instead. The greatest difference was for patients who asked to see a GP and instead spoke to a nurse for whom the adjusted mean difference in confidence and trust compared with those who wanted to see a nurse and did see a nurse was -15.8 points (95%?CI -17.6 to -14.0) for confidence and trust in the practitioner and -10.5 points (95%?CI -11.7 to -9.3) for net communication score, both on a 0-100 scale. CONCLUSIONS:Patients' evaluation of their care is worse if they do not receive the type of consultation they expect, especially if they prefer a doctor but are unable to see one. New models of care should consider the potential unintended consequences for patient experience of the widespread introduction of multidisciplinary teams in general practice.

SUBMITTER: Paddison CAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829817 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

Paddison Charlotte A M CAM Abel Gary A GA Burt Jenni J Campbell John L JL Elliott Marc N MN Lattimer Valerie V Roland Martin M

BMJ open 20180203 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine patient consultation preferences for seeing or speaking to a general practitioner (GP) or nurse; to estimate associations between patient-reported experiences and the type of consultation patients actually received (phone or face-to-face, GP or nurse).<h4>Design</h4>Secondary analysis of data from the 2013 to 2014 General Practice Patient Survey.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>870 085 patients from 8005 English general practices.<h4>Outcomes</h4>Patient ratings of ...[more]

PMID: 29431131

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesUncertainties exist about when and how best to adjust performance measures for case mix. Our aims are to quantify the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level scores in a national survey of patient experience, to identify why and when it may be useful to adjust for case mix, and to discuss unresolved policy issues regarding the use of case-mix adjustment in performance measurement in health care.Design/settingSecondary analysis of the 2009 English General Practice Patient Survey. Responses from 2 163 456 patients registered with 8267 primary care practices. Linear mixed effects models were used with practice included as a random effect and five case-mix variables (gender, age, race/ethnicity, deprivation, and self-reported health) as fixed effects.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level means (adjusted minus unadjusted) and changes in practice percentile ranks for questions measuring patient experience in three domains of primary care: access; interpersonal care; anticipatory care planning, and overall satisfaction with primary care services.ResultsDepending on the survey measure selected, case-mix adjustment changed the rank of between 0.4% and 29.8% of practices by more than 10 percentile points. Adjusting for case-mix resulted in large increases in score for a small number of practices and small decreases in score for a larger number of practices. Practices with younger patients, more ethnic minority patients and patients living in more socio-economically deprived areas were more likely to gain from case-mix adjustment. Age and race/ethnicity were the most influential adjustors.ConclusionsWhile its effect is modest for most practices, case-mix adjustment corrects significant underestimation of scores for a small proportion of practices serving vulnerable patients and may reduce the risk that providers would 'cream-skim' by not enrolling patients from vulnerable socio-demographic groups.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the concerns of parents, teachers, and nurses regarding each child's well-being and the school doctor actions conducted in routine general health checks.DesignA blinded, observational study. Prior to the health check parents, teachers, and nurses completed questionnaires assessing their concerns. Doctors, blinded to the responses, routinely examined all children accompanied by parents and reported their actions after each health check. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyse the association of the concerns with the actions.Setting21 primary schools in four municipalities in Finland.ParticipantsBetween August 2017 and August 2018, we randomly recruited 1341 children from grades 1 and 5, aged 7 and 11 years, respectively.Outcome measuresOutcome measures were the respondents' concerns and the school doctor actions. The extent of concerns was assessed on a five-point Likert scale. Concern refers to 'Quite a lot or a great deal of concern' by at least one respondent. The school doctor actions included instructions and/or significant discussions, prescriptions, laboratory tests and/or medical imaging, scheduling of follow-up appointments, referrals to other professionals, and referrals to specialised care.ResultsAltogether, respondents were concerned about 47.5% of children. The top three concerns comprised growth/and or physical symptoms (22.7%), emotions (16.2%), and concentration (15.1%). All concerns were associated with some type of school doctor action (ORs: 1.66-4.27, p≤0.05); but only concerns regarding growth and/or physical symptoms were associated with all actions. Almost all concerns were associated with referrals to other professionals (ORs: 1.80-4.52, p≤0.01); emotions had the strongest association OR 4.52 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.80, p<0.0001).ConclusionsHealth checks by school doctors may lead to referrals of children to other professionals especially for children's psychosocial problems. This should be considered when developing the roles, training, and multiprofessional collaboration of school health care professionals.Trial registrationNCT03178331.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess patient comfort speaking up about problems during hospitalisation and to identify patients at increased risk of having a problem and not feeling comfortable speaking up.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingEight hospitals in Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia.ParticipantsPatients hospitalised at any one of eight hospitals who completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey postdischarge.Main outcome measuresResponse to the question 'How often did you feel comfortable speaking up if you had any problems in your care?' grouped as: (1) no problems during hospitalisation, (2) always felt comfortable speaking up and (3) usually/sometimes/never felt comfortable speaking up.ResultsOf 10 212 patients who provided valid responses, 4958 (48.6%) indicated they had experienced a problem during hospitalisation. Of these, 1514 (30.5%) did not always feel comfortable speaking up. Predictors of having a problem during hospitalisation included age, health status and education level. Patients who were older, reported worse overall and mental health, were admitted via the Emergency Department and did not speak English at home were less likely to always feel comfortable speaking up. Patients who were not always comfortable speaking up provided lower ratings of nurse communication (47.8 vs 80.4; p<0.01), physician communication (57.2 vs 82.6; p<0.01) and overall hospital ratings (7.1 vs 8.7; p<0.01). They were significantly less likely to definitely recommend the hospital (36.7% vs 71.7 %; p<0.01) than patients who were always comfortable speaking up.ConclusionsPatients frequently experience problems in care during hospitalisation and many do not feel comfortable speaking up. Creating conditions for patients to be comfortable speaking up may result in service recovery opportunities and improved patient experience. Such efforts should consider the impact of health literacy and mental health on patient engagement in patient-safety activities.

Project description:BACKGROUND: It has now for many years been recognised that patient evaluations should be undertaken as an integral part of the complex task of improving the quality of general practice care. Yet little is known about the general practitioners' (GPs') benefit from patient evaluations. Aim 1 was to study the impact on the GPs of a patient evaluation and subsequent feedback of results presented at a plenary session comprising a study guide for the results and group discussions. Aim 2 was to study possible facilitators and barriers to the implementations of the results raised by the patient evaluation process. METHODS: A patient evaluation survey of 597 voluntarily participating GPs was performed by means of the EUROPEP questionnaire. Evaluation results were fed back to the GPs as written reports at a single feedback meeting with group discussions of the results. Between 3 and 17 months after the feedback, the 597 GPs received a questionnaire with items addressing their experience with and perceived benefit from the evaluations. RESULTS: 79.4% of the GPs responded. 33% of the responding GPs reported that the patient evaluation had raised their attention to the patient perspective on the quality of general practice care. Job satisfaction had improved among 26%, and 21% had developed a more positive attitude to patient evaluations. 77% of the GPs reported having learnt from the evaluation. 54% had made changes to improve practice, 82% would recommend a patient evaluation to a colleague and 75% would do another patient evaluation if invited. 14% of the GPs had become less positive towards patient evaluations, and job satisfaction had decreased among 3%. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant impact on the GPs regarding satisfaction with the process and attitude towards patient evaluations, GPs' attention to the patients' perspective on care quality and their job satisfaction. Being benchmarked against the average seemed to raise barriers to the concept of patient evaluations and difficulties interpreting the results may have formed a barrier to their implementation which was partly overcome by adding qualitative data to the quantitative results. The GPs' significant willingness to share and discuss the results with others may have served as a facilitator.

Dataset Information

What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

Publications

What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets