Search

Background: In international studies, greater investment in primary health care is associated with improved population health outcomes.Aim: To determine whether investment in general practice is associated with secondary care utilisation, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes.Design and Setting: Retrospective cross-sectional study of general practices in England, 2014-2015.Method: Practice-level data were stratified into three groups according to GP contract type: national General Medical Services (GMS) contracts, with or without the capitation supplement (mean practice income guarantee), or local Personal Medical Services (PMS) contracts. Regression models were used to explore associations between practice funding (capitation payments and capitation supplements) and secondary care usage, patient satisfaction (general practice patient survey scores), and clinical outcomes (Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF] scores). The authors conducted financial modelling to predict secondary care cost savings associated with notional changes in primary care funding.Results: Mean capitation payments per patient were £69.82 in GMS practices in receipt of capitation supplements (n = 2784), £78.79 in GMS practices without capitation supplements (n = 1672), and £84.43 in PMS practices (n = 3022). The mean capitation supplement was £5.72 per patient. Financial modelling demonstrated little or no relationship between capitation payments and secondary care costs. In contrast, notional investment in capitation supplements was associated with modelled savings in secondary care costs. The relationship between funding and patient satisfaction was inconsistent. QOF performance was not associated with funding in any practice type.Conclusion: Capitation payments appear to be broadly aligned to patient need in terms of secondary care usage. Supplements to the current capitation formula are associated with reduced secondary care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concerns about adverse effects on patient satisfaction may be an important obstacle to attempts to curtail antibiotic prescribing.Aim: To determine the relationship between antibiotic prescribing in general practice and reported patient satisfaction.Design and Setting: Retrospective cross-sectional study of general practices in England.Method: Data were obtained from the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) in 2012 (2.7 million questionnaires in England; 982 999 responses; response rate 36%); the national Quality and Outcomes Framework dataset for England, 2011-2012 (8164 general practices); and general practice and demographic characteristics. Standardised measures of antibiotic prescribing volumes were obtained for each practice in England during 2012-2013, together with 12 other nationally available prescribing variables. The role of antibiotic prescribing volume was identified as a determinant of GPPS scores and adjusted for demographic and practice factors using multiple linear regression.Results: The final dataset consisted of 7800 (95.5%) practices. A total of 33.7 million antibiotic prescriptions were issued to a registered population of 53.8 million patients. Antibiotic prescribing volume was a significant positive predictor of all 'doctor satisfaction' and 'practice satisfaction' scores in the GPPS, and was the strongest predictor of overall satisfaction out of 13 prescribing variables. A theoretical 25% reduction in antibiotic prescribing volume would be associated with 0.5-1.0% lower patient satisfaction scores, a drop of 3-6 centile points in national satisfaction ranking.Conclusion: Patients were less satisfied in practices with frugal antibiotic prescribing. A cautious approach to antibiotic prescribing may require a trade-off in terms of patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients vary in their desire to be involved in decisions about their care.Aim: To assess the accuracy and impact of GPs' perceptions of their patients' desire for involvement.Design Of Study: Consultation-based study.Setting: Five primary care centres in south London.Method: Consecutive patients completed decision-making preference questionnaires before and after consultation. Eighteen GPs completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the study and reported their perceptions of patients' preferences after each consultation. Patients' satisfaction was assessed using the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale. Analyses were conducted in 190 patient-GP pairs that identified the same medicine decision about the same main health problem.Results: A total of 479 patients participated (75.7% of those approached). Thirty-nine per cent of these patients wanted their GPs to share the decision, 45% wanted the GP to be the main (28%) or only (17%) decision maker regarding their care, and 16% wanted to be the main (14%) or only (2%) decision maker themselves. GPs accurately assessed patients' preferences in 32% of the consultations studied, overestimated patients' preferences for involvement in 45%, and underestimated them in 23% of consultations studied. Factors protective against GPs underestimating patients' preferences were: patients preferring the GP to make the decision (odds ratio [OR] 0.2 per point on the five-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1 to 0.4), and the patient having discussed their main health problem before (OR 0.3; 95% CI = 0.1 to 0.9). Patients' educational attainment was independently associated with GPs underestimation of preferences.Conclusion: GPs' perceptions of their patients' desire to be involved in decisions about medicines are inaccurate in most cases. Doctors are more likely to underestimate patients' preferred level of involvement when patients have not consulted about their condition before. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Provision of spirometry for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a new requirement in primary care. Effective spirometry requires that tests and interpretations meet international criteria. Aim To assess the feasibility and usefulness of remote specialist reporting of primary care spirometry. Design of study Comparison of reporting by primary care clinicians and respiratory specialists of consecutive primary care spirometry tests. Setting South London primary care teams with patient lists ≥6000. Method Feasibility of remote reporting of spirometry was assessed by the frequency of electronic mailing of tests. Usefulness of remote reporting was defined by the frequency that specialist reports made a clinically significant addition. Usefulness was assessed by measuring agreement (κ) between primary care reports and those of specialists. Clinically significant disagreements were analysed with respect to test quality, diagnosis, and severity. Results Six practices emailed 312 tests over 3 months. Forty-nine tests sent without indices or curves (flow volume and time volume) were excluded. Mean age of patients tested was 65 years and 52% were female. Mean predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) was 69%. Clinically significant disagreements were identified in the interpretation of acceptability (quality) of 67/212 (32%) tests (κ = 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.24), of diagnosis in 49/168 (29%) tests (κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.55), and of severity in 62/191 (32%) tests (κ = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.63). Conclusion Remote reporting of primary care spirometry was feasible. Its usefulness was confirmed by the high rate of additional clinically significant information to the reports of primary care clinicians. The quality of primary care spirometry was so unsatisfactory that remote reporting of tests may be a means of establishing adequate spirometry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]