Search

Objective: To examine the implementation of 'Advanced Access' as a means of improving access to primary care. Methods: Qualitative case studies of eight English general practices undertaken as part of a mixed method study. Results: There was considerable variation in the interpretation and implementation of Advanced Access. Practices claiming to operate this system often did not follow its key principles. Differences between practice access systems centred on the use of 'same-day' appointments. The association of Advanced Access with same-day appointment systems was problematic as it both created antagonism to, and diverged from, the Advanced Access model. Practice staff did not necessarily share the conceptualisation of demand that underpinned Advanced Access. Other policies and targets provided further incentives to diverge from the model and these factors were compounded by informal organizational behaviours, notably the exercise of discretion, which led to adaptation. Conclusion: Advanced Access was diluted because it became confused with same-day appointment systems and other incentives and targets. Its guiding philosophy of 'manageable demand' appeared counter-intuitive to staff in the context of general practice, which made its implementation problematic. As a result, the system was adapted and modified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Case studies from the US suggest that Advanced Access appointment systems lead to shorter delays for appointments, reduced workload, and increased continuity of care. Aim To determine whether implementation of Advanced Access in general practice is associated with the above benefits in the UK. Design of study Controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study. Setting Twenty-four practices that had implemented Advanced Access and 24 that had not. Method Anonymous telephone calls were made monthly to request an appointment. Numbers of appointments and patients consulting were calculated from practice records. Continuity was determined from anonymised patient records. Results The wait for an appointment with any doctor was slightly shorter at Advanced Access practices than control practices (mean 1.00 day and 1.87 days respectively, adjusted difference -0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.51 to 0.004 days). Advanced Access practices met the NHS Plan 48-hour access target on 71% of occasions and control practices on 60% of occasions (adjusted odds ratio 1.61; 95% CI = 0.78 to 3.31; P = 0.200). The number of appointments offered, and patients seen, increased at both Advanced Access and control practices over the period studied, with no evidence of differences between them. There was no difference between Advanced Access and control practices in continuity of care (adjusted difference 0.003; 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.07). Conclusion Advanced Access practices provided slightly shorter waits for an appointment compared with control practices, but performance against NHS access targets was considerably poorer than officially reported for both types of practice. Advanced Access practices did not have reduced workload or increased continuity of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To establish which generic attributes of general practice out-of-hours health services are important to the public. Methods A discrete choice experiment postal survey conducted in three English general practitioner (GP) co-operatives. A total of 871 individuals aged 20–70 years registered with a GP. Outcomes were preferences for, and trade-offs between: time to making initial contact, time waiting for advice/treatment, informed of expected waiting time, type of contact, professional providing advice, chance contact relieves anxiety, and utility estimates for valuing current models of care. Results Response rate was 37%. Respondents valued out-of-hours contact for services for reducing anxiety but this was not the only attribute of importance. They had preferences for the way in which services were organized and valued information about expected waiting time, supporting findings from elsewhere. Participants were most willing to make trade-offs between waiting time and professional person. Of the predicted utility for three models of care utility was higher for fully integrated call management. Conclusions Greater utility might be achieved if existing services are re-configured more in line with the government's fully integrated call management model. Because the attributes were described in generic terms, the findings can be applied more generally to the plethora of models that exist (and many that might exist in the future). The approach used is important for achieving greater public involvement in how health services develop. Few experiments have elicited public preferences for health services in the UK to date. This study showed valid preferences were expressed but there were problems obtaining representative views from the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]