Search

Background: Health service policy in many jurisdictions is driving greater investment into digital primary care services. While some patients and practices may benefit, there are concerns that not all are able or wish to access primary care services online. "Digital facilitation" is the "range of processes, procedures, and personnel seeking to support patients in their uptake and use of online services" and may address such concerns., Objective: As part of a multimethod research program, we undertook surveys of practice staff and patients to gain insight into the support being offered by practices and explore patients' experiences of this support., Methods: General practices from 4 regions of England were sent a questionnaire exploring the modes of digital facilitation offered, the personnel involved in its delivery, and views on the motivations and drivers for providing support. Moreover, 12,822 patients registered with 62 general practices (predominantly those providing practice survey responses) were sent a questionnaire exploring their experiences of any support offered by their practice to use online services., Results: Almost one-third of practices (156/500, 31.2%) responded to the practice survey, with most reporting using passive modes of digital facilitation (eg, display, leaflets, and SMS text messages) and few using active modes (eg, offering tablets or computers or using practice champions). However, 90.9% (130/143) reported providing ad hoc support. Practices agreed that it was the responsibility of both the practice (105/144, 72.9%) and the wider National Health Service (118/143, 82.5%) to support patients in using online services and that providing such support benefited the practice (126/144, 87.5%) and their patients (132/144, 91.7%). Nearly a quarter of the patients (3051/12,822, 23.8%) responded to the patient survey, with few (522/3051, 17.11% or less) reporting awareness of any modes of digital facilitation apart from text messages and emails (1205/3051, 39.5%) and only 13.36% (392/2935) reporting receiving support to use online services. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that older patients had a lower likelihood of 4 outcomes: being aware of, or of using, digital facilitation efforts, or being told about or being helped to use online services (all P<.05), particularly with regard to being helped to use online services (adjusted odds ratio for patients aged 85 years versus those aged 55-64 years: 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.36). However, ethnic minority participants or those for whom their first language was not English had positive associations with these outcomes., Conclusions: General practices recognize that patients would benefit from support to access online services. However, the support provided is often passive or ad hoc, and patients were seldom aware of digital facilitation efforts that their practice provided. There is potential to increase engagement with online primary care services by providing more support for all patients, particularly to provide targeted support for older patients., (©Rachel Winder, John L Campbell, Nurunnahar Akter, Abodunrin Q Aminu, Jeffrey Lambert, Emma Cockcroft, Chloe Thomas, Christopher E Clark, Carol Bryce, Jon Sussex, Helen Atherton, Christine Marriott, Gary Abel. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 07.08.2024.)

Background: The aim of this work was to show the feasibility of providing a comprehensive portrait of regional primary care performance., Methods: The TRANSFORMATION study used a mixed-methods concurrent study design where we analyzed survey data and case studies. Data were collected in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Patient's Medical Home (PMH) pillar scores were created by calculating mean clinic-level scores across regions. Scores and qualitative themes were compared., Results: Participation included 86 practices (n = 1,929 patients; n = 117 clinicians). Regions had differential attainment towards PMH orientation with respect to infrastructure; community adaptiveness and accountability; and patient and family partnered care. The lowest PMH attainment for all regions were observed in connected care; accessible care; measurement, continuous quality improvement and research; and training, education and continuing professional development., Conclusions: Comprehensive performance reporting that draws on multiple data sources in primary care is possible. Regional portraits highlighting many of the key pillars of a PMH approach to primary care show that despite differences in policy contexts, achieving a PMH remains elusive., (Copyright © 2021 Longwoods Publishing.)

Objective: To assess the effects of interventions aimed at involving older people with multimorbidity in decision-making about their healthcare during primary care consultations., Methods: Cochrane methodological procedures were applied. Searches covered all relevant trial registries and databases. Randomised controlled trials were identified where interventions had been compared with usual care/ control/ another intervention. A narrative synthesis is presented; meta-analysis was not appropriate., Results: 8160 abstracts and 54 full-text articles were screened. Three studies were included, involving 1879 patient participants. Interventions utilised behaviour change theory; cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; multidisciplinary, holistic patient review and organisational changes. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making about their healthcare'. Patient involvement was evident in the theory underpinning interventions. Certainty of evidence (assessed using GRADE) was limited by small studies and inconsistency in secondary outcomes measured., Conclusion: The evidence base is currently too limited to interpret with certainty. Transparency in design and consistency in evaluation, using validated measures, is required for future interventions involving older patients with multimorbidity in decisions about their healthcare., Practice Implications: There is a large gap between clinical guidelines for multimorbidity and an evidence base for implementation of their recommendations during primary care consultations with older people., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest PB has received grants from the Department of Health, Medical Research Council, and National Institute of Health Research. PB has received royalty payments from Cambridge University Press. PB was a co-author on one of the included studies [47], however, was not involved in data extraction and/or quality assessment of the study for which he is a named co-author. No potential conflicts of interest are declared by other authors., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore regional primary care improvement strategies that are potentially determinants of primary care performance., Design: Multiple comparative embedded case study., Setting: Three regions in Canada: Fraser East, British Columbia; Eastern Ontario Health Unit, Ontario; Central Zone, Nova Scotia., Data Sources: (1) In-depth interviews with purposively selected key informants (eg, primary care decision-makers, physician leads, regulatory agencies) and focus groups with patients and clinicians (n=68 participants) and (2) published and grey literature (n=205 documents)., Outcome Measures: Variations in spread and uptake of primary care improvement strategies across the three study regions. NVivo (V.11) was used to manage data and perform content analysis to identify categories within and across cases. The coding structure was developed by researchers through iterative collaboration, using inductive and deductive processes., Results: Six overarching primary care improvement strategies, differing in focus and spread, were implemented across the three study regions: interprofessional team-based approaches, provider skill mix expansion, physician groups and networks, information systems, remuneration and performance measurement and reporting infrastructure., Conclusion: The addition of information on regional improvement strategies to primary care performance reports could add important contextual insights into primary care performance results. This could help identify possible drivers of reported performance outcomes and levers for change in practice, regional and system-level settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To study the relationships between the different domains of quality of primary health care for the evaluation of health system performance and for informing policy decision making., Data Sources: A total of 137 quality indicators collected from 7,607 English practices between 2011 and 2012., Study Design: Cross-sectional study at the practice level. Indicators were allocated to subdomains of processes of care ("quality assurance," "education and training," "medicine management," "access," "clinical management," and "patient-centered care"), health outcomes ("intermediate outcomes" and "patient-reported health status"), and patient satisfaction. The relationships between the subdomains were hypothesized in a conceptual model and subsequently tested using structural equation modeling., Principal Findings: The model supported two independent paths. In the first path, "access" was associated with "patient-centered care" (β = 0.63), which in turn was strongly associated with "patient satisfaction" (β = 0.88). In the second path, "education and training" was associated with "clinical management" (β = 0.32), which in turn was associated with "intermediate outcomes" (β = 0.69). "Patient-reported health status" was weakly associated with "patient-centered care" (β = -0.05) and "patient satisfaction" (β = 0.09), and not associated with "clinical management" or "intermediate outcomes.", Conclusions: This is the first empirical model to simultaneously provide evidence on the independence of intermediate health care outcomes, patient satisfaction, and health status. The explanatory paths via technical quality clinical management and patient centeredness offer specific opportunities for the development of quality improvement initiatives., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Reaching a decision about whether and when to visit the doctor can be a difficult process for the patient. An early visit may cause the doctor to wonder why the patient chose to consult when the disease was self-limiting and symptoms would have settled without medical input. A late visit may cause the doctor to express dismay that the patient waited so long before consulting. In the UK primary care context of constrained resources and government calls for cautious healthcare spending, there is all the more pressure on both doctor and patient to meet only when necessary. A tendency on the part of health professionals to judge patients' decisions to consult as appropriate or not is already described. What is less well explored is the patient's experience of such judgment. Drawing on data from 52 video-elicitation interviews conducted in the English primary care setting, the present paper examines how patients seek to legitimise their decision to consult, and their struggles in doing so. The concern over wasting the doctor's time is expressed repeatedly through patients' narratives. Referring to the sociological literature, the history of 'trivia' in defining the role of general practice is discussed, and current public discourses seeking to assist the patient in developing appropriate consulting behaviour are considered and problematised. Whilst the patient is expected to have sufficient insight to inform timely consulting behaviour, it becomes clear that any attempt on the part of doctor or patient to define legitimate help-seeking is in fact elusive. Despite this, a significant moral dimension to what is deemed appropriate consulting by doctors and patients remains. The notion of candidacy is suggested as a suitable framework and way forward for encompassing these struggles to negotiate eligibility for medical time., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Various prevalence figures have been reported for inter-arm differences in blood pressure (IAD); variation may be explained by differing population vascular risk and by measurement method., Aim: To review the literature to derive robust estimates of IAD prevalence relevant to community populations., Design and Setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Method: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for cross-sectional studies likely to represent general or primary care populations, reporting prevalence of IAD and employing a simultaneous method of measurement. Using study-level data, pooled estimates of mean prevalence of systolic IADs were calculated and compared using a random effects model., Results: Eighty IAD studies were identified. Sixteen met inclusion criteria: pooled estimates of prevalence for systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg were 11.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1 to 13.6) in hypertension, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.8 to 9.2) in diabetes, and 3.6% (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.0) for a general adult population (P<0.001 for subgroup differences). Differences persisted for higher cut-off values. Prevalences were lower for East Asian than for Western populations and were overestimated by sequential measurement where this could be compared with simultaneous measurement within studies (relative risk for IAD: 2.9 [95% CI = 2.1 to 4.1]). Studies with higher mean absolute systolic pressures had higher prevalences for a systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg (P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Prevalences of IADs rise in relation to underlying cardiovascular comorbidities of the population studied, and are overestimated threefold when sequential measurement is used. Population-specific variation in prevalences of IAD should be taken into account in delivering clinical care and in planning future studies., (© British Journal of General Practice 2016.)

Background: Differences in blood pressure between arms are associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in cohorts with established vascular disease or substantially elevated cardiovascular risk., Aim: To explore the association of inter-arm difference (IAD) with mortality in a community-dwelling cohort that is free of cardiovascular disease., Design and Setting: Cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial in central Scotland, from April 1998 to October 2008., Method: Volunteers from Lanarkshire, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, free of pre-existing vascular disease and with an ankle-brachial index ≤0.95, had systolic blood pressure measured in both arms at recruitment. Inter-arm blood pressure differences were calculated and examined for cross-sectional associations and differences in prospective survival. Outcome measures were cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality during mean follow-up of 8.2 years., Results: Based on a single pair of measurements, 60% of 3350 participants had a systolic IAD ≥5 mmHg and 38% ≥10 mmHg. An IAD ≥5 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.07) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.44, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.79). Within the subgroup of 764 participants who had hypertension, IADs of ≥5 mmHg or ≥10 mmHg were associated with both cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 2.63, 95% CI = 0.97 to 7.02, and adjusted HR 2.96, 95% CI = 1.27 to 6.88, respectively) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.67, 95% CI = 1.05 to 2.66, and adjusted HR 1.63, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.50, respectively). IADs ≥15 mmHg were not associated with survival differences in this population., Conclusion: Systolic IADs in blood pressure are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, including mortality, in a large cohort of people free of pre-existing vascular disease., (© British Journal of General Practice 2016.)

Background: Despite widespread adoption of patient feedback surveys in international health-care systems, including the English NHS, evidence of a demonstrable impact of surveys on service improvement is sparse., Objective: To explore the views of primary care practice staff regarding the utility of patient experience surveys., Design: Qualitative focus groups., Setting and Participants: Staff from 14 English general practices., Results: Whilst participants engaged with feedback from patient experience surveys, they routinely questioned its validity and reliability. Participants identified surveys as having a number of useful functions: for patients, as a potentially therapeutic way of getting their voice heard; for practice staff, as a way of identifying areas of improvement; and for GPs, as a source of evidence for professional development and appraisal. Areas of potential change stimulated by survey feedback included redesigning front-line services, managing patient expectations and managing the performance of GPs. Despite this, practice staff struggled to identify and action changes based on survey feedback alone., Discussion: Whilst surveys may be used to endorse existing high-quality service delivery, their use in informing changes in service delivery is more challenging for practice staff. Drawing on the Utility Index framework, we identified concerns relating to reliability and validity, cost and feasibility acceptability and educational impact, which combine to limit the utility of patient survey feedback., Conclusions: Feedback from patient experience surveys has great potential. However, without a specific and renewed focus on how to translate feedback into action, this potential will remain incompletely realized., (© 2014 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/objectives: To determine which aspects of primary care matter most to patients, we aim to identify those aspects of patient experience that show the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction and examine the extent to which these relationships vary by socio-demographic and health characteristics., Design/setting: Data from the 2009/10 English General Practice Patient Survey including 2,169,718 respondents registered with 8362 primary care practices., Measures/analyses: Linear mixed-effects regression models (fixed effects adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, self-reported health, self-reported mental health condition and random practice effect) predicting overall satisfaction from six items covering four domains of care: access, helpfulness of receptionists, doctor communication and nurse communication. Additional models using interactions tested whether associations between patient experience and satisfaction varied by socio-demographic group., Results: Doctor communication showed the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction (standardized coefficient 0.48, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.48), followed by the helpfulness of reception staff (standardized coefficient 0.22, 95% CI = 0.22, 0.22). Among six measures of patient experience, obtaining appointments in advance showed the weakest relationship with overall satisfaction (standardized coefficient 0.06, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.06). Interactions showed statistically significant but small variation in the importance of drivers across different patient groups., Conclusions: For all patient groups, communication with the doctor is the most important driver of overall satisfaction with primary care in England, along with the helpfulness of receptionists. In contrast, and despite being a policy priority for government, measures of access, including the ability to obtain appointments, were poorly related to overall satisfaction., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England., Design and Methods: Using questionnaire data from 906,578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583,143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale., Results: Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis., Conclusions: Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Telephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice., Objectives: In comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice., Design: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation., Setting: General practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk)., Participants: Patients requesting same-day consultations., Interventions: Practices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation., Main Outcome Measures: Primary - primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary - resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care., Results: Of 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UC n = 7283; GPT n = 6695; NT n = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UC n = 5572; GPT n = 5171; NT n = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient-clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it., Conclusions: Introducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives: To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice., Design: Analysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices., Setting: Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey., Participants: 7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013., Main Outcome Measure: Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models., Results: After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores., Conclusions: Aggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners., (© Roberts et al 2014.)

Background: Young adulthood is an important transitional period during which there is a higher risk of individuals engaging in behaviours which could have a lasting impact on their health. Research has shown that young adults are the lowest responders to surveys about healthcare experiences and are also the least satisfied with the care they receive. However, the factors contributing to this reduced satisfaction are not clear. The focus of our research was to explore the needs and experiences of young adults around healthcare services with an aim of finding out possible reasons for lower satisfaction., Methods: Twenty young adults were interviewed at GP surgeries and at a local young adult advice agency, exploring their experiences and use of primary care services. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: The use of primary care services varied amongst the young adult interviewees. Many interviewees reported positive experiences; those who did not linked their negative experiences to difficulties in negotiating their care with the health care system, and reported issues with trust, and communication difficulties. Most of the interviewees were unaware of the use of patient surveys to inform healthcare planning and delivery and were not inclined to take part, mainly because of the length of surveys and lack of interest in the topic area., Conclusions: In order to effectively address the health needs of young adults, young adults need to be educated about their rights as patients, and how to most efficiently use primary care services. GPs should be alert to effective means of approaching and handling the healthcare needs of young adults. A flexible, varied approach is needed to gathering high quality data from this group in order to provide services with information on the changes necessary for making primary care services more accessible for young adults.

This literature review focuses on what matters to young adults when they access primary care services in the United Kingdom. Patients' access to and experience of primary care services differs across age groups. Existing research has largely focused on the needs and experiences of children, adolescents, and adults. There is some evidence to suggest the views of young adults (aged 18-25 years) that may differ from the views of other age groups, and research has not previously reported specifically on the views of this group of the population. The literature was reviewed to identify the views and priorities of young UK adults regarding primary healthcare provision, and furthermore, to identify those related topics that would benefit from further research. Relevant academic publications and grey literature published from 2000 onwards was reviewed and synthesised. We identified and reported emerging themes that were of importance to young adults in respect of the UK primary care provision. A total of 19 papers met our inclusion criteria. Young adults access primary care services less frequently than other age groups; this may be because of their experience of primary care throughout childhood and adolescence. Five aspects of primary care provision emerged as being of importance to young adults--the accessibility and availability of services, the confidentiality of health-related information, issues relating to communication with healthcare professionals, continuity of care, and behaviours and attitudes expressed towards young adults by healthcare professionals. There is a lack of focus of current research on the expectations, needs, and primary healthcare experiences of young adults. Young adults may hold views that are distinct from other age groups. Further research is needed to better understand the needs of a young adult population as their needs may impact the future use of services.

Objectives: Uncertainties 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/setting: Secondary 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 Measures: Primary 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., Results: Depending 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., Conclusions: While 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.

Objective: To determine whether a difference in systolic blood pressure readings between arms can predict a reduced event free survival after 10 years., Design: Cohort study., Setting: Rural general practice in Devon, United Kingdom., Participants: 230 people receiving treatment for hypertension in primary care., Intervention: Bilateral blood pressure measurements recorded at three successive surgery attendances., Main Outcome Measures: Cardiovascular events and deaths from all causes during a median follow-up of 9.8 years., Results: At recruitment 24% (55/230) of participants had a mean interarm difference in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more and 9% (21/230) of 15 mm Hg or more; these differences were associated with an increased risk of all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5 and 3.1, 1.6 to 6.0, respectively). The risk of death was also increased in 183 participants without pre-existing cardiovascular disease with an interarm difference in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more or 15 mm Hg or more (2.6, 1.4 to 4.8 and 2.7, 1.3 to 5.4). An interarm difference in diastolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more was weakly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events or death., Conclusions: Differences in systolic blood pressure between arms can predict an increased risk of cardiovascular events and all cause mortality over 10 years in people with hypertension. This difference could be a valuable indicator of increased cardiovascular risk. Bilateral blood pressure measurements should become a routine part of cardiovascular assessment in primary care.

Background: Exercise referral schemes (ERS) aim to identify inactive adults in the primary-care setting. The GP or health-care professional then refers the patient to a third-party service, with this service taking responsibility for prescribing and monitoring an exercise programme tailored to the needs of the individual., Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ERS for people with a diagnosed medical condition known to benefit from physical activity (PA). The scope of this report was broadened to consider individuals without a diagnosed condition who are sedentary., Data Sources: MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science; SPORTDiscus and ongoing trial registries were searched (from 1990 to October 2009) and included study references were checked., Methods: Systematic reviews: the effectiveness of ERS, predictors of ERS uptake and adherence, and the cost-effectiveness of ERS; and the development of a decision-analytic economic model to assess cost-effectiveness of ERS., Results: Seven randomised controlled trials (UK, n = 5; non-UK, n = 2) met the effectiveness inclusion criteria, five comparing ERS with usual care, two compared ERS with an alternative PA intervention, and one to an ERS plus a self-determination theory (SDT) intervention. In intention-to-treat analysis, compared with usual care, there was weak evidence of an increase in the number of ERS participants who achieved a self-reported 90-150 minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA per week at 6-12 months' follow-up [pooled relative risk (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.25]. There was no consistent evidence of a difference between ERS and usual care in the duration of moderate/vigorous intensity and total PA or other outcomes, for example physical fitness, serum lipids, health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was no between-group difference in outcomes between ERS and alternative PA interventions or ERS plus a SDT intervention. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with medical diagnoses. Fourteen observational studies and five randomised controlled trials provided a numerical assessment of ERS uptake and adherence (UK, n = 16; non-UK, n = 3). Women and older people were more likely to take up ERS but women, when compared with men, were less likely to adhere. The four previous economic evaluations identified suggest ERS to be a cost-effective intervention. Indicative incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates for ERS for various scenarios were based on a de novo model-based economic evaluation. Compared with usual care, the mean incremental cost for ERS was £169 and the mean incremental QALY was 0.008, with the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at £20,876 per QALY in sedentary people without a medical condition and a cost per QALY of £14,618 in sedentary obese individuals, £12,834 in sedentary hypertensive patients, and £8414 for sedentary individuals with depression. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were highly sensitive to plausible variations in the RR for change in PA and cost of ERS., Limitations: We found very limited evidence of the effectiveness of ERS. The estimates of the cost-effectiveness of ERS are based on a simple analytical framework. The economic evaluation reports small differences in costs and effects, and findings highlight the wide range of uncertainty associated with the estimates of effectiveness and the impact of effectiveness on HRQoL. No data were identified as part of the effectiveness review to allow for adjustment of the effect of ERS in different populations., Conclusions: There remains considerable uncertainty as to the effectiveness of ERS for increasing activity, fitness or health indicators or whether they are an efficient use of resources in sedentary people without a medical diagnosis. We failed to identify any trial-based evidence of the effectiveness of ERS in those with a medical diagnosis. Future work should include randomised controlled trials assessing the cinical effectiveness and cost-effectivenesss of ERS in disease groups that may benefit from PA., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objective: To assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ongoing trial registries up to October 2009. We also checked study references. Study selection Design: randomised controlled trials or non-randomised controlled (cluster or individual) studies published in peer review journals., Population: sedentary individuals with or without medical diagnosis. Exercise referral schemes defined as: clear referrals by primary care professionals to third party service providers to increase physical activity or exercise, physical activity or exercise programmes tailored to individuals, and initial assessment and monitoring throughout programmes. Comparators: usual care, no intervention, or alternative exercise referral schemes., Results: Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, comparing exercise referral schemes with usual care (six trials), alternative physical activity intervention (two), and an exercise referral scheme plus a self determination theory intervention (one). Compared with usual care, follow-up data for exercise referral schemes showed an increased number of participants who achieved 90-150 minutes of physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week (pooled relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.30) and a reduced level of depression (pooled standardised mean difference -0.82, -1.28 to -0.35). Evidence of a between group difference in physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity or in other health outcomes was inconsistent at follow-up. We did not find any difference in outcomes between exercise referral schemes and the other two comparator groups. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with specific medical diagnoses. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality and nature of the exercise referral schemes across studies might have contributed to the inconsistency in outcome findings. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of exercise referral schemes for increasing physical activity, fitness, or health indicators, or whether they are an efficient use of resources for sedentary people with or without a medical diagnosis.

Aim: To systematically review studies reporting the effectiveness of various models of follow-up in primary care on a range of outcomes (physical, psychological, social functioning, or quality of life) for survivors of stroke and their caregivers., Background: Stroke is a major cause of disability globally. Current UK policy calls for a primary care-based review of healthcare and social-care needs at six weeks and six months after hospital discharge and then annually., Methods: Trials meeting the pre-defined inclusion criteria were identified by the systematic searching of electronic databases. Data were extracted by two independent researchers. Studies were rated using the McMaster University Quality Assessment Tool., Findings: Nine randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. These studies included interventions using stroke support workers, care coordinators or case managers. The methodological quality of the studies was variable, and models of care demonstrated inconsistent working relationships with general practitioners. Patients and caregivers receiving formal primary care-based follow-up did not show any gains in physical function, mood, or quality of life when compared with those who did not. Patients and caregivers receiving follow-up were generally more satisfied with some aspects of communication, and had a greater knowledge of stroke., Conclusions: The limited quality of these studies and the lack of a sound theoretical basis for the development of interventions together highlight the urgent need for high-quality research studies in this area.

Background and Objective: Provision of out-of-hours care in the UK National Health Service (NHS) has changed in recent years with new models of provision and the introduction of national quality requirements. Existing survey instruments tend to focus on users' satisfaction with service provision; most were developed without undertaking supporting qualitative fieldwork. In this study, a survey instrument was developed taking account of these changes in service provision and undertaking supporting qualitative fieldwork. This paper reports on the development and psychometric properties of the new survey instrument, the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire (OPQ), which aims to capture information on the entirety of users' experiences of out-of-hours care, from the decision to make contact through to completion of their care management., Methods: An iterative approach was undertaken to develop the new instrument which was then tested in users of out-of-hours services in three geographically distributed UK settings. For the purposes of this study, "service users" were defined as "individuals about whom contact was made with an out-of-hours primary care medical service", whether that contact was made by the user themselves, or via a third party. Analysis was undertaken of the acceptability, reliability and validity of the survey instrument., Results: The OPQ tested is a 56-item questionnaire, which was distributed to 1250 service users. Respondents were similar in respect of gender, but were older and more affluent (using a proxy measure) than non-respondents. Item completion rates were acceptable. Respondents sometimes completed sections of the questionnaire which did not equate to their principal mode of management as recorded in the record of the contact. Preliminary evidence suggests the OPQ is a valid and reliable instrument which contains within it two discrete scales--a consultation satisfaction scale (nine items) and an "entry-access" scale (four items). Further work is required to determine the generalisability of findings obtained following use of the OPQ, especially to non-white user populations., Conclusion: The OPQ is an acceptable instrument for capturing information on users' experiences of out-of-hours care. Preliminary evidence suggests it is both valid and reliable in use. Further work will report on its utility in informing out-of-hours service planning and configuration and standard-setting in relation to UK national quality requirements.

Background: The government has proposed a 48-hour target for GP availability. Although many practices are moving towards delivering that goal, recent national patient surveys have reported a deterioration in patients' reports of doctor availability. What practice factors contribute to patients' perceptions of doctor availability?, Method: A cross sectional patient survey (11,000 patients from 54 inner London practices, 7247 (66%) respondents) using the General Practice Assessment Survey. We asked patients how soon they could be seen in their practice following non-urgent consultation requests and related their aggregated responses to the characteristics of their practice., Results: Three factors relating to practice administration and appointments systems operation independently predicted patients' reports of doctor availability. These were the proportion of patients asked to attend the surgery and wait to be seen, the proportion of patients seen using an emergency surgery arrangement, and the extent of practice computerization., Conclusion: Some practices may have difficulty in meeting the target for GP availability. Meeting the target will involve careful review of practice administrative procedures.

Background: Patients' evaluations are an important means of measuring aspects of primary care quality such as communication and interpersonal care. This study aims to examine variations in assessments of primary care according to age, gender, socioeconomic, and ethnicity variables., Methods: A cross sectional survey of consecutive patients attending 55 inner London practices was performed over a 2 week period using the General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS) instrument which assesses 13 important dimensions of primary care provision. Variations in scale scores were investigated for differences relating to age, gender, socioeconomic, and ethnic status as reported by respondents., Results: A total of 7692 questionnaires were returned (71% response rate). Valid information on age, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity was available for 4819 out of 5496 adult respondents. Approximately half the respondents reported their ethnic group as "white" and most of the remaining respondents reported belonging to "black" or South Asian groups. Significant differences existed between groups of patients defined by age or ethnicity for most of the scale scores examined. Black, South Asian, and Chinese respondents reported lower scores (representing less favourable assessments) than white respondents; older respondents reported more favourable evaluations of care than younger respondents; and less affluent groups reported lower scores than more affluent groups for two of the 13 dimensions. There was no significant difference between gender groups with respect to assessment of primary care. Age and ethnicity were independent predictors of respondents' assessments of primary care., Conclusions: Differences exist between identifiable subgroups of the population in their assessments of primary health care measured using the GPAS instrument. This work adds to the literature on variation in healthcare experience and the potential for patient assessment of primary care. Further work is required to investigate these differences in more detail and to relate them to differences in the nature and process of primary care provision. Primary care providers need to ensure that services provided are appropriate for all patient groups within their communities.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the psychometric properties of the General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS) and its acceptability to patients in the UK. GPAS comprises seven multiple item scales and two single item scales addressing nine key areas of primary care activity (access, technical care, communication, inter-personal care, trust, knowledge of patient, nursing care, receptionists and continuity of care). A further four single items relate to patients' perceptions of the GP's role in referral and co-ordination of care, their willingness to recommend their GP and their overall satisfaction with care received., Methods: Two hundred consecutive patients attending routine consulting sessions at 55 inner London practices were invited to complete the GPAS questionnaire. The acceptability, reliability and validity of GPAS was assessed using standard psychometric techniques., Results: Out of 11 000 patients, 7247 (66%) completed a questionnaire in a GP surgery. Fifty-five out of a separate sample of 77 patients attending one practice completed a second questionnaire mailed to them 1 week following their attendance. GPAS was acceptable to patients as evidenced by low proportions of missing data for all items, and a full range of possible scores for all but one of the nine scales. Reliability of the instrument was good. Multiple item scales had excellent internal consistency, high item-total correlations, and test-retest reliability. Scaling assumptions were confirmed, with six of the seven scales achieving 100% scaling success (convergent and discriminant validity). Construct validity was evident, although this requires further evaluation against external measures., Conclusions: GPAS is a useful instrument for assessing several important dimensions of primary care. It is acceptable, reliable and valid, and has the potential for versatility in mode of administration. It will be a useful instrument for practices, primary care groups and primary care researchers evaluating key areas of primary care activity. Further work is required to evaluate its performance in non-inner-city settings and to evaluate further its validity against external criteria.

This paper explores the potential for geographical information system technology in defining some variables influencing the use of primary care medical services. Eighteen general practices in Scotland contributed to a study examining the accessibility of their services and their patients' use of the local Accident and Emergency Department. Geo-referencing of information was carried out through analysis of postcode data relating to practices and patients. This information was analyzed using ARC/INFO GIS software in conjunction with the ORACLE relational database and 1991 census information. The results demonstrate that GIS technology has an important role in defining and analyzing the use of health services by the population.