Dataset Information

Who attends out-of-hours general practice appointments? Analysis of a patient cohort accessing new out-of-hours units.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:This report describes the patients who used additional out-of-hours (OOH) appointments offered through a UK scheme intended to increase patient access to primary care by extending OOH provision. DESIGN:Cohort study and survey data. SETTING:OOH appointments offered in four units in one region in England (October 2015 to November 2016). METHODS:Unidentifiable data on all patients were abstracted from a bespoke appointment system and the responses to a patient opinion questionnaire about this service. Descriptive analysis of the appointment data was conducted. Multivariate analysis of the opinion survey data examined the characteristics of the patients who would have gone to the emergency department (ED) had the OOH appointments not been available. RESULTS:There were 24?448 appointments for 19?701 different patients resulting in 29?629 service outcomes. Women dominated the uptake and patients from the poorest fifth of the population used nearly 40% of appointments. The patient survey found OOH appointments were extremely popular-93% selecting 'extremely likely' or 'likely' to recommend the service. Multivariate analysis of patient opinion survey data on whether ED would have been an alternative to the OOH service found that men, young children, people of Asian heritage and the most deprived were more likely to have gone to ED without this service. CONCLUSIONS:The users of the OOH service were substantially different from in-hours service users with a large proportion of children under age 5, and the poor, which support the idea that there may be unmet need as the poor have the least flexible working conditions. These results demonstrate the need for equality impact assessment in planning service improvements associated with policy implementation. It suggests that OOH need to take account of patients expectations about convenience of appointments and how patients use services for urgent care needs.

SUBMITTER: Kelly SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6009516 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Who attends out-of-hours general practice appointments? Analysis of a patient cohort accessing new out-of-hours units.

Kelly Shona J SJ Piercy Hilary H Ibbotson Rachel R Fowler Davis Sally V SV

BMJ open 20180609 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>This report describes the patients who used additional out-of-hours (OOH) appointments offered through a UK scheme intended to increase patient access to primary care by extending OOH provision.<h4>Design</h4>Cohort study and survey data.<h4>Setting</h4>OOH appointments offered in four units in one region in England (October 2015 to November 2016).<h4>Methods</h4>Unidentifiable data on all patients were abstracted from a bespoke appointment system and the responses to a patien ...[more]

PMID: 29886444

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAre multiple missed appointments in general practice associated with increased use of hospital services and missingness from hospital care? This novel study explores this in a population representative sample for the first time.Design, setting, participantsA large, retrospective cohort (n = 824,374) of patient records from a nationally representative sample of GP practices, Scotland, 2013-2016. Requested data were extracted by a Trusted Third Party for the NHS, anonymised and linked to a unique patient ID, in the NHS Safehaven for analysis using established NHS Scotland linkage. We calculated the per-patient number of GP missed appointments from individual appointments and investigated the likelihood of hospital appointment or admission outcomes using a negative binomial model offset by number of GP appointments made. These models also controlled for age, sex, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and number of long- term conditions (LTCs).Main outcome measuresHospital attendance: Outpatient clinic attendances; hospital admissions; Emergency Department (ED) attendances. Hospital missingness: 'Did not attend' (DNAs) outpatient clinic appointments, 'irregular discharges' from admissions, and 'left before care completed' ED care episodes.ResultsAttendance: Patients in the high missed GP appointment (HMA) category were higher users of outpatient services (rate ratio (RR) 1.90, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.88-1.93) compared to those who missed none (NMA) with a much higher attendance risk at mental health services (RR 4.56, 95% CI 4.31-4.83). HMA patients were more likely to be admitted to hospital; general admissions (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.65-1.68), maternity (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.20-1.28) and mental health (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.15-1.31), compared to NMA patients. Missing GP appointments was not associated with ED attendance; (RR 1.00, CI 0.99-1.01). Missingness: HMA patients were at greater risk of missing outpatient appointments (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.60-1.64) than NMA patients; with a much higher risk of non-attendance at mental health services (RR 7.83, 95% CI 7.35-8.35). Patients were more likely to leave hospital before their care plan was completed-taking 'irregular discharges' (RR 4.56, 95% CI 4.31-4.81). HMA patients were no more at risk of leaving emergency departments 'without care being completed' (RR1.02, 95 CI 0.95-1.09).ConclusionsPatients who miss high numbers of GP appointments are higher users of outpatient and inpatient hospital care but not of emergency departments, signalling high treatment burden. The pattern of 'missingness' is consistent from primary care to hospital care: patients who have patterns of missing GP appointments have patterns of missing many outpatient appointments and are more likely to experience 'irregular discharge' from in-patient care. Missingness from outpatient mental health services is very high. Policymakers, health service planners and clinicians should consider the role and contribution of 'missingness' in health care to improving patient safety and care.

Project description:Background Repeated studies of working hours among Norwegian regular general practitioners (RGPs) have shown that the average total number of weekly working hours has remained unchanged since 1994 and up until 2014. For both male and female RGPs, the mean total weekly working hours amounted to almost 50?h in 2014. In recent years, Norwegian RGPs have become increasingly dissatisfied. They experience significantly increased workload without compensation in the form of more doctors or better payment. A study from the Norwegian Directorate of Health in 2018 (the RGP study) showed that Norwegian RGPs worked 55.6?h weekly (median 52.5). 25% of the respondents worked more than 62.2?h weekly. Based on data from the RGP study we investigated Norwegian RGP’s out-of-hours (OOH) work, how the working time was distributed, and to what extent the OOH work affected the regular working hours. Methods In early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4640 RGPs in Norway. Each RGP reported how many minutes that were spent that particular day on various tasks during seven consecutive days. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional medical work and OOH primary health care. Differences were analysed by independent t-tests, and regression analyses. Results One thousand eighty hundred seventy-six RGPs (40.4%) responded, 640 (34.1%) had registered OOH work. Male RGPs worked on average 1.5?h more doing regular work than did females (p =?0.001) and on average 2.3?h more OOH work than females (p =?0.079). RGPs with no OOH work registered a mean of 1.0?h more clinical work than RGPs working OOH (p =?0.043). There was a large variation in OOH working hours. A linear regression analysis showed that male RGPs and RGPs in rural areas had the heaviest OOH workload. Conclusions One in three Norwegian RGPs undertook OOH work during the registration week in the RGP study. OOH work was done in addition to a sizeable regular workload as an RGP. We found small gender differences. OOH work was not compensated with reduced regular RGP work.

Project description:Increasingly, nurse practitioners (NPs) are deployed in teams along with general practitioners (GPs) to help meet the demand for out-of-hours care. The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs in teams working out-of-hours.A descriptive qualitative study was done using a total of 27 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions. Data was collected between June, 2014 and October, 2015 at an out-of-hours primary care organisation in the Netherlands. Overall, 38 health professionals (GPs, NPs, and support staff) participated in the study. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers conducted an inductive content analysis, involving the identification of relevant items in a first phase and clustering into themes in a second phase.The following four themes emerged from the data: clarity of NP role and regulation, shared caseload and use of skills, communication concerning professional roles, trust and support in NP practice. Main factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs included a lack of knowledge regarding the NPs' scope of practice and regulations governing NP role; differences in teams in sharing caseload and using each other's skills effectively; varying support of GPs for the NP role; and limited communication between GPs and NPs regarding professional roles during the shift. Lack of collaboration was perceived to result in an increased risk of delay for patients who needed treatment from a GP, especially in teams with more NPs. Collaboration was not perceived to improve over time as teams varied across shifts.In out-of-hours primary care teams constantly change and team members are often unfamiliar with each other or other's competences. In this environment, knowledge and communication about team members' roles is continuously at stake. Especially in teams with more NPs, team members need to use each other's skills to deliver care to all patients on time.

Project description:BackgroundKnowing where and why harm occurs in general practice will assist patients, doctors, and others in making informed decisions about the risks and benefits of treatment options. Research to date has been unable to verify the safety of primary health care and epidemiological research about patient harms in general practice is now a top priority for advancing health systems safety.ObjectiveWe aim to study the incidence, distribution, severity, and preventability of the harms patients experience due to their health care, from the whole-of-health-system lens afforded by electronic general practice patient records.Methods"Harm" is defined as disease, injury, disability, suffering, and death, arising from the health system. The study design is a stratified, 2-level cluster, retrospective records review study. Both general practices and patients will be randomly selected so that the study's results will apply nationally, after weighting. Stratification by practice size and rurality will allow comparisons between 6 study groups (large, medium-sized, small; urban and rural practices). Records of equal numbers of patients from each study group will be included in the study because there may be systematic differences in patient harms in different types of practices. Eight general practitioner investigators will review 3 years of electronic general practice health records (consultation notes, prescriptions, investigations, referrals, and summaries of hospital care) from 9000 patients registered in 60 general practices. Double-blinded reviews will check the concordance of reviewers' assessments. Study data will comprise demographic data of all 9000 patients and reviewers' assessments of whether patients experienced harm arising from health care. Where patient harm is identified, their types, preventability, severity, and outcomes will be coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) 18.0.ResultsWe have recruited practices and collected electronic records from 9078 patients. Reviews of these records are under way. The study is expected to be completed in August 2017.ConclusionsThe design of this complex study is presented with discussion on data collection methods, sampling weights, power analysis, and statistical approach. This study will show the epidemiology of patient harms recorded in general practice records for all of New Zealand and will show whether this epidemiology differs by rural location and clinic size.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Research underpinning the patient experience of people with chronic conditions in Australian general practice is not well developed. We aimed to ascertain the perspectives of key stakeholders on aspects of patient experience, more specifically with regards to accessing general practice in Australia. METHODS:Using a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone and face-to-face with people living with one or more chronic conditions, informal carers, and primary care providers between October 2016 and October 2017. Participants were recruited and selected from three demographically representative primary health networks across Sydney, Australia. Interview transcripts and researcher's reflective fieldnotes were coded and analyzed for key themes of access. Analysis and interpretation of data were guided by Levesque's model of access, a conceptual framework to evaluate access broadly and from corresponding patient- and provider-side dimensions. RESULTS:A total of 40 interviews were included in the analysis. Most participants had attended their general practices for 10 years or more and had regular primary care providers. People with chronic conditions reported access barriers predominantly in their ability to reach services, which were related to illness-related disabilities (limited mobility, chronic pain, fatigue, frailty) and limitations in the availability and accommodation of health services to address patient preferences (unavailability of after-hours services, lack of alternative modes of service delivery). While cost was not a major barrier, we found a lack of clarity in the factors that determined providers' decisions to waive or reduce costs for some patients and not others. CONCLUSIONS:People managing chronic conditions with a long-term primary care provider experienced access barriers in general practice, particularly in their ability to physically reach care and to do so on a timely basis. This study has important policy and practice implications, as it highlights patients' experiences of accessing care and possible areas for improvement to appropriately respond to these experiences. Themes identified may be useful in the design of a patient experience survey tool specific to this population. While it incorporates perspectives from patients, carers and providers, this study could be further strengthened by including perspectives from culturally and linguistically underrepresented patient groups and more carers.

Dataset Information

Who attends out-of-hours general practice appointments? Analysis of a patient cohort accessing new out-of-hours units.

Publications

Who attends out-of-hours general practice appointments? Analysis of a patient cohort accessing new out-of-hours units.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets