Recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis: an observational study

Background

Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic disease in the UK, with greater prevalence in women, older people, and those with poorer socioeconomic status. Effective treatments are available, yet little is known about the quality of primary care for this disabling condition.

Aim

To measure the recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and assess variavariations by patient and/or practice characteristics.

Design of study

Retrospective observational study.

Setting

Eighteen general practices in England.

Method

Records of 320/393 randomly selected patients with osteoarthritis (response rate 81%) were reviewed. High-quality health care was specified by nine quality indicators. Logistic regression modelling assessed variations in quality by age, sex, deprivation, severity, time since diagnosis, and practice size.

Results

There was substantial variation in the recorded achievement of individual indicators (range 5% to 90%). The percentage of eligible patients whose records show that they received care in the form of information provision ranged from 17% to 30%. For regular assessment indicators the range was 27% to 43%, and for treatment indicators the range was 5% to 90%. Recorded achievement of quality indicators was higher in those with more severe osteoarthritis (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.69) and in older patients (OR 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28). There were no significant variations by deprivation score.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated the feasibility of using existing robust quality indicators to measure the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and has found considerable scope for improvement in the recording of high-quality care. The lack of variation between practices suggests that system-level initiatives may be needed to achieve improvement. One challenge will be to improve care for all, without losing the equitable distribution of care identified.     

Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown.

Aim

To describe: (1) implementation of the QOF cancer care review; (2) patients'' experiences of primary care over the first 3 years following a cancer diagnosis; (3) patients'' views on optimal care; and (4) the views of primary care professionals regarding their cancer care.

Design of study

Qualitative study using thematic analysis and a framework approach.

Setting

Six general practices in the Thames Valley area.

Method

Semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and focus groups with primary care teams.

Results

Thirty-eight adults with 12 different cancer types were interviewed. Seventy-one primary care team members took part in focus groups. Most cancer care reviews are conducted opportunistically. Thirty-five patients had had a review; only two could recall this. Patients saw acknowledgement of their diagnosis and provision of general support as important and not always adequately provided. An active approach and specific review appointment would legitimise the raising of concerns. Primary care teams considered cancer care to be part of their role. GPs emphasised the importance of being able to respond to individual patients'' needs and closer links with secondary care to facilitate a more involved role.

Conclusion

Patients and primary care teams believe primary care has an important role to play in cancer care. Cancer care reviews in their current format are not helpful, with considerable scope for improving practice in this area. An invitation to attend a specific appointment at the end of active treatment may aid transition from secondary care and improve satisfaction with follow-up in primary care.     

Identification of an updated set of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs

Background

Medication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking.

Aim

To identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator.

Design and setting

RAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice.

Method

Prescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach.

Results

Fifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7–9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug–drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants.

Conclusion

This study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.     

The UK pay-for-performance programme in primary care: estimation of population mortality reduction

Background

General practices in the UK contract with the government to receive additional payments for high-quality primary care. Little is known about the resulting impact on population health.

Aim

To estimate the potential reduction in population mortality from implementation of the pay-for-performance contract in England.

Design of study

Cross-sectional and modelling study.

Setting

Primary care in England.

Method

Twenty-five clinical quality indicators in the contract had controlled trial evidence of mortality benefit. This was combined with condition prevalence, and the differences in performance before and after contract implementation, to estimate the potential mortality reduction per indicator. Improvement was adjusted for pre-existing trends where data were available.

Results

The 2004 contract potentially reduced mortality by 11 lives per 100 000 people (lower–upper estimates 7–16) over 1 year, as performance improved from baseline to the target for full incentive payment. If all eligible patients were treated, over and above the target, 56 (29–81) lives per 100 000 might have been saved. For the 2006 contract, mortality reduction was effectively zero, because new baseline performance for a typical practice had already exceeded the target performance for full payment.

Conclusion

The contract may have delivered substantial health gain, but potential health gain was limited by performance targets for full payment being set lower than typical baseline performance. Information on both baseline performance and population health gain should inform decisions about future selection of indicators for pay-for-performance schemes, and the level of performance at which full payment is triggered.     

The strength of primary care in Europe: an international comparative study

Background

A suitable definition of primary care to capture the variety of prevailing international organisation and service-delivery models is lacking.

Aim

Evaluation of strength of primary care in Europe.

Design and setting

International comparative cross-sectional study performed in 2009–2010, involving 27 EU member states, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey.

Method

Outcome measures covered three dimensions of primary care structure: primary care governance, economic conditions of primary care, and primary care workforce development; and four dimensions of primary care service-delivery process: accessibility, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordination of primary care. The primary care dimensions were operationalised by a total of 77 indicators for which data were collected in 31 countries. Data sources included national and international literature, governmental publications, statistical databases, and experts’ consultations.

Results

Countries with relatively strong primary care are Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK. Countries either have many primary care policies and regulations in place, combined with good financial coverage and resources, and adequate primary care workforce conditions, or have consistently only few of these primary care structures in place. There is no correlation between the access, continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness of primary care of countries.

Conclusion

Variation is shown in the strength of primary care across Europe, indicating a discrepancy in the responsibility given to primary care in national and international policy initiatives and the needed investments in primary care to solve, for example, future shortages of workforce. Countries are consistent in their primary care focus on all important structure dimensions. Countries need to improve their primary care information infrastructure to facilitate primary care performance management.     

Quality of care provided to people with dementia: utilisation and quality of the annual dementia review in general practice

Background

Primary care services are often the main healthcare service for people with dementia; as such, good-quality care at this level is important.

Aim

To measure the quality of care provided to people with dementia in general practice using routinely collected data, and to explore associated patient and practice factors.

Design and setting

Observational, cross-sectional review of medical records from general practices (n = 52) in five primary care trusts.

Method

A total of 994 people with dementia were identified from dementia registers. An unweighted quality-of-care score was constructed using information collected in the annual dementia review, together with pharmacological management of cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms. Multilevel modelling was carried out to identify factors associated with quality-of-care scores.

Results

In total, 599 out of 745 (80%) patients with dementia had received an annual dementia review; however, a social care review or discussion with carers was evident in just 305 (51%) and 367 (61%) of those 599 cases, respectively. Despite high prevalence of vascular disease, over a quarter (n = 259, 26%) of all patients with dementia were prescribed antipsychotics; only 57% (n = 148) of these had undergone medication review in the previous 6 months. Those with vascular dementia who were registered with single-handed practices received poorer quality of care than those registered with practices that had more than one GP.

Conclusion

Although the number of people with dementia with a record of an annual dementia review is high, the quality of these reviews is suboptimal. The quality score developed in this study could be used as one source of data to identify weaknesses in practice activity that need to be corrected, and so would be of value to commissioners and regulators, as well as practices themselves.     

Recorded quality of care for depression in general practice: an observational study

Background

Depression is a leading cause of disease and disability internationally, and is responsible for many primary care consultations. Little is known about the quality of primary care for depression in the UK.

Aim

To determine the prevalence of good-quality primary care for depression, and to analyse variations in quality by patient and practice characteristics.

Design of study

Retrospective observational study.

Setting

Eighteen general practices in England.

Method

Medical records were examined for 279 patients. The percentage of eligible participants diagnosed with depression who received the care specified by each of six quality indicators in 2002 and 2004 was assessed. Associations between quality achievement and age, sex, patient deprivation score, timepoint, and practice size were estimated using logistic regression.

Results

There was very wide variation in achievement of different indicators (range 1–97%). Achievement was higher for indicators referring to treatment and follow-up than for indicators referring to history taking. Achievement of quality indicators was low overall (37%). Quality did not vary significantly by patient or practice characteristics.

Conclusion

There is substantial scope for improvement in the quality of primary care for depression, if the highest achievement rates could be matched for all indicators. Given the lack of variation by practice characteristics, system-level and educational interventions may be the best ways to improve quality. The equitable distribution of quality by patient deprivation score is an important achievement that may be challenging to maintain as quality improves.     

The relationship between social deprivation and the quality of primary care: a national survey using indicators from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework

BACKGROUND: The existence of health inequalities between least and most socially deprived areas is now well established. AIM: To use Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators to explore the characteristics of primary care in deprived communities. DESIGN OF STUDY: Two-year study. SETTING: Primary care in England. METHOD: QOF data were obtained for each practice in England in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and linked with census derived social deprivation data (Index of Multiple Deprivation scores 2004), national urbanicity scores and a database of practice characteristics. Data were available for 8480 practices in 2004-2005 and 8264 practices in 2005-2006. Comparisons were made between practices in the least and most deprived quintiles. RESULTS: The difference in mean total QOF score between practices in least and most deprived quintiles was 64.5 points in 2004-2005 (mean score, all practices, 959.9) and 30.4 in 2005-2006 (mean, 1012.6). In 2005-2006, the QOF indicators displaying the largest differences between least and most deprived quintiles were: recall of patients not attending appointments for injectable neuroleptics (79 versus 58%, respectively), practices opening > or =45 hours/week (90 versus 74%), practices conducting > or = 12 significant event audits in previous 3 years (93 versus 81%), proportion of epileptics who were seizure free > or = 12 months (77 versus 65%) and proportion of patients taking lithium with serum lithium within therapeutic range (90 versus 78%). Geographical differences were less in group and training practices. CONCLUSIONS: Overall differences between primary care quality indicators in deprived and prosperous communities were small. However, shortfalls in specific indicators, both clinical and non-clinical, suggest that focused interventions could be applied to improve the quality of primary care in deprived areas.     

Correlation between prescribing quality and pharmaceutical costs in English primary care: national cross-sectional analysis

Background

Both pharmaceutical costs and quality-indicator performance vary substantially between general practices, but little is known about the relationship between prescribing costs and quality

Aim

To measure the association between prescribing quality and pharmaceutical costs among English general practices

Design and setting

Cross-sectional observational study using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework and the Prescribing Analysis and Cost database from all 8409 general practices in England in 2005-2006

Method

Correlation between practice achievement of 26 prescribing quality indicators in eight prescribing areas and related pharmaceutical costs was examined.

Results

There was no significant association between the overall achievement of quality indicators and related pharmaceutical costs (P= 0.399). Mean achievement of quality indicators across all eight prescribing areas was 79.0% (standard deviation 4.4%). There were small positive correlations in five prescribing areas: influenza vaccination, beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, lipid lowering, and antiplatelet treatment (all P<0.001). There were small negative correlations in two prescribing areas: hypertension (P<0.001) and smoking cessation (P = 0.018).

Conclusion

Correlations between prescribing quality and pharmaceutical costs were much smallerthan expected; possible explanations forthis include a substantial variation in rates of prescribing outside evidence-based protocols, and use of expensive pharmaceuticals instead of cheaper effective alternatives. There remains considerable scope for some practices to make pharmaceutical cost savings while improving quality performance. The ratio of quality scores to related pharmaceutical costs could be developed into a performance indicator     

Development of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs using the RAND Appropriateness Method

Background

In the UK, a process of revalidation is being introduced to allow doctors to demonstrate that they meet current professional standards, are up-to-date, and fit to practise. Given the serious risks to patients from hazardous use of medicines it will be appropriate, as part of the revalidation process, to assess the safety of prescribing by GPs.

Aim

To identify a set of potential prescribing-safety indicators forthe purposes of revalidation of individual GPs in the UK.

Design and setting

The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to identify, develop, and obtain agreement on the indicators in UK general practice.

Method

Twelve GPs from across the UK with a wide variety of characteristics assessed indicators for appropriateness of use in revalidation.

Results

Forty-seven safety indicators were considered appropriate for assessing the prescribing safety of individual GPs forthe purposes of revalidation (appropriateness was defined as an overall panel median score of ≥7 (on a 1-9 scale), with no more than three panel members rating the indicator outside the 3-point distribution around the median]. After removing indicators that were variations on the same theme, a final set of 34 indicators was obtained; these cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic areas, hazardous drug-drug combinations, prescribing with a history of allergy, and inadequate laboratory-test monitoring.

Conclusion

This study identified a set of 34 indicators that were considered, by a panel of 12 GPs, to be appropriate for use in assessing the safety of GP prescribing forthe purposes of revalidation. Violation of any of the 34 indicators indicates a potential patient-safety problem.     

Early identification of palliative care patients in general practice: development of RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care Needs (RADPAC)

Background

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, palliative care should be initiated in an early phase and not be restricted to terminal care. In the literature, no validated tools predicting the optimal timing for initiating palliative care have been determined.

Aim

The aim of this study was to systematically develop a tool for GPs with which they can identify patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cancer respectively, who could benefit from proactive palliative care.

Design

A three-step procedure, including a literature review, focus group interviews with input from the multidisciplinary field of palliative healthcare professionals, and a modified Rand Delphi process with GPs.

Method

The three-step procedure was used to develop sets of indicators for the early identification of CHF, COPD, and cancer patients who could benefit from palliative care.

Results

Three comprehensive sets of indicators were developed to support GPs in identifying patients with CHF, COPD, and cancer in need of palliative care. For CHF, seven indicators were found: for example, frequent hospital admissions. For COPD, six indicators were found: such as, Karnofsky score ≤50%. For cancer, eight indicators were found: for example, worse prognosis of the primary tumour.

Conclusion

The RADboud indicators for PAlliative Care Needs (RADPAC) is the first tool developed from a combination of scientific evidence and practice experience that can help GPs in the identification of patients with CHF, COPD, or cancer, in need of palliative care. Applying the RADPAC facilitates the start of proactive palliative care and aims to improve the quality of palliative care in general practice.     

Implementation of pay for performance in primary care: a qualitative study 8 years after introduction

Background

Pay for performance is now a widely adopted quality improvement initiative in health care. One of the largest schemes in primary care internationally is the English Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).

Aim

To obtain a longer term perspective on the implementation of the QOF.

Design and setting

Qualitative study with 47 health professionals in 23 practices across England.

Method

Semi-structured interviews.

Results

Pay for performance is accepted as a routine part of primary care in England, with previous more individualistic and less structured ways of working seen as poor practice. The size of the QOF and the evidence-based nature of the indicators are regarded as key to its success. However, pay for performance may have had a negative impact on some aspects of medical professionalism, such as clinical autonomy, and led a significant minority of GPs to prioritise their own pay rather than patients’ best interests. A small minority of GPs tried to increase their clinical autonomy with further unintended consequences.

Conclusion

Pay for performance indicators are now welcomed by primary healthcare teams and GPs across generations. Almost all interviewees wanted to see a greater emphasis on involving front line practice teams in developing indicators. However, almost all GPs and practice managers described a sense of decreased clinical autonomy and loss of professionalism. Calibrating the appropriate level of clinical autonomy is critical if pay for performance schemes are to have maximal impact on patient care.     

Patient-reported areas for quality improvement in general practice: a cross-sectional survey

Background

GPs are often a patient’s first point of contact with the health system. The increasing demands imposed on GPs may have an impact on the quality of care delivered. Patients are well placed to make judgements about aspects of care that need to be improved.

Aim

To determine whether general practice patients perceive that the care they receive is ‘patient-centred’ across eight domains of care, and to determine the association between sociodemographic, GP and practice characteristics, detection of preventive health risks, and receipt of patient-centred care.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional survey of patients attending Australian general practice clinics.

Method

Patients completed a touchscreen survey in the waiting room to rate the care received from their GP across eight domains of patient-centred care. Patients also completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and self-reported health risk factors. GPs completed a checklist for each patient asking about the presence of health risk factors.

Results

In total 1486 patients and 51 GPs participated. Overall, 83% of patients perceived that the care they received was patient-centred across all eight domains. Patients most frequently perceived the ‘access to health care when needed’ domain as requiring improvement (8.3%). Not having private health insurance and attending a practice located in a disadvantaged area were significantly associated with perceived need for improvements in care (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients in general practice report that accessibility is an aspect of care that could be improved. Further investigation of how indicators of lower socioeconomic status interact with the provision of patient-centred care and health outcomes is required.     

Bereavement care in primary care: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis

Background

Over half a million people die in Britain each year and, on average, a GP will have 20 patients die annually. Bereavement is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, but the research evidence on which GPs and district nurses can base their practice is limited.

Aim

To review the existing literature concerning how GPs and district nurses think they should care for patients who are bereaved and how they do care for them.

Design

Systematic literature review.

Method

Searches of AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and PsychInfo databases were undertaken, with citation searches of key papers and hand searches of two journals. Inclusion criteria were studies containing empirical data relating to adult bereavement care provided by GPs and district nurses. Information from data extraction forms were analysed using NVivo software, with a narrative synthesis of emergent themes.

Results

Eleven papers relating to GPs and two relating to district nurses were included. Both groups viewed bereavement care as an important and satisfying part of their work, for which they had received little training. They were anxious not to ‘medicalise’ normal grief. Home visits, telephone consultations, and condolence letters were all used in their support of bereaved people.

Conclusion

A small number of studies were identified, most of which were >10 years old, from single GP practices, or small in size and of limited quality. Although GPs and district nurses stated a preference to care for those who were bereaved in a proactive fashion, little is known of the extent to which this takes place in current practice, or the content of such care.     

Patient experience and the role of postgraduate GP training: a cross-sectional analysis of national Patient Survey data in England

Background

Quality indicators for primary care focus predominantly on the public health model and organisational measures. Patient experience is an important dimension of quality. Accreditation for GP training practices requires demonstration of a series of attributes including patient-centred care.

Aim

The national GP Patient Survey (GPPS) was used to determine the characteristics of general practices scoring highly in responses relating to the professional skills and characteristics of doctors. Specifically, to determine whether active participation in postgraduate GP training was associated with more positive experiences of care.

Design and setting

Retrospective cross-sectional study in general practices in England.

Method

Data were obtained from the national QOF dataset for England, 2011/12 (8164 general practices); the GPPS in 2012 (2.7 million questionnaires in England; response rate 36%); general practice and demographic characteristics. Sensitivity analyses included local data validated by practice inspections. Outcome measures: multilevel regression models adjusted for clustering.

Results

GP training practice status (29% of practices) was a significant predictor of positive GPPS responses to all questions in the ‘doctor care’ (n = 6) and ‘overall satisfaction’ (n = 2) domains but not to any of the ‘nurse care’ or ‘out-of-hours’ domain questions. The findings were supported by the sensitivity analyses. Other positive determinants were: smaller practice and individual GP list sizes, more older patients, lower social deprivation and fewer ethnic minority patients.

Conclusion

Based on GPPS responses, doctors in GP training practices appeared to offer more patient-centred care with patients reporting more positively on attributes of doctors such as ‘listening’ or ‘care and concern’.     

Primary care quality indicators for children: measuring quality in UK general practice

Background

Child health care is an important part of the UK general practice workload; in 2009 children aged <15 years accounted for 10.9% of consultations. However, only 1.2% of the UK’s Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance incentive points relate specifically to children.

Aim

To improve the quality of care provided for children and adolescents by defining a set of quality indicators that reflect evidence-based national guidelines and are feasible to audit using routine computerised clinical records.

Design and setting

Multi-step consensus methodology in UK general practice.

Method

Four-step development process: selection of priority issues (applying nominal group methodology), systematic review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) clinical guidelines, translation of guideline recommendations into quality indicators, and assessment of their validity and implementation feasibility (applying consensus methodology used in selecting QOF indicators).

Results

Of the 296 national guidelines published, 48 were potentially relevant to children in primary care, but only 123 of 1863 recommendations (6.6%) met selection criteria for translation into 56 potential quality indicators. A further 13 potential indicators were articulated after review of existing quality indicators and standards. Assessment of the validity and feasibility of implementation of these 69 candidate indicators by a clinical expert group identified 35 with median scores 8 on a 9-point Likert scale. However, only seven of the 35 achieved a GRADE rating >1 (were based on more than expert opinion).

Conclusion

Producing valid primary care quality indicators for children is feasible but difficult. These indicators require piloting before wide adoption but have the potential to raise the standard of primary care for all children.     

Type and accuracy of sphygmomanometers in primary care: a cross-sectional observational study

Background

Previous studies identified worrying levels of sphygmomanometer inaccuracy and have not been repeated in the era of digital measurement of blood pressure

Aim

To establish the type and accuracy of sphygmomanometers in current use

Design and setting

Cross-sectional, observational study in 38 Oxfordshire primary care practices

Method

Sphygmomanometers were evaluated between 50 and 250 mmHg, using Omron PA350 or Scandmed 950831-2 pressure meters.

Results

Six hundred and four sphygmomanometers were identified: 323 digital (53%), 192 aneroid (32%), 79 mercury (13%), and 10 hybrid (2%) devices. Of these, 584 (97%) could be fully tested. Overall, 503/584 (86%) were within 3 mmHg of the reference, 77/584 (13%) had one or more errorof 4-9 mmHg, and 4/584 (<1%) had one or more errorof more than 10 mmHg. Mercury (71/75, 95%) and digital (272/308, 88%) devices were more likely to be within 3 mmHg of the reference standard than aneroid models (150/191, 78%) (Fisher''s exact test P = 0.001). Donated aneroid devices from the pharmaceutical industry performed significantly worse: 10/23 (43%) within 3 mmHg of standard compared to 140/168 (83%) aneroid models from recognised manufacturers (Fisher''s exact test P<0.001). No significant difference was found in performance between manufacturers within each device type, for either aneroid (Fisher''s exact test P = 0.96) or digital (Fisher''s exact test P = 0.7) devices.

Conclusion

Digital sphygmomanometers have largely replaced mercury models in primary care and have equivalent accuracy. Aneroid devices have higherfailure rates than other device types; this appears to be largely accounted forby models from indiscernible manufacturers. Given the availability of inexpensive and accurate digital models, GPs could consider replacing aneroid devices with digital equivalents, especially for home visiting.     

Weekend opening in primary care: analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey

Background

Seven-day opening in primary care is a key policy for the UK government. However, it is unclear if weekend opening will meet patients’ needs or lead to additional demand.

Aim

To identify patient groups most likely to use weekend opening in primary care.

Design and setting

The General Practice Patient Survey 2014, which sampled from all general practices in England, was used.

Method

Logistic regression was used to measure the associations between perceived benefit from seeing or speaking to someone at the weekend and age, sex, deprivation, health conditions, functioning, work status, rurality, and quality of life.

Results

Out of 881 183 participants who responded to the questionnaire, 712 776 (80.9%) did not report any problems with opening times. Of the 168 407 responders (19.1%) who reported inconvenient opening times, 73.9% stated that Saturday opening, and 35.8% Sunday opening, would make it easier for them to see or speak to someone. Only 2.2% of responders reported that Sunday, but not Saturday, opening would make it easier for them. Younger people, those who work full time, and those who could not get time off work were more likely to report that weekend opening would help. People with Alzheimer’s disease, learning difficulties, or problems with walking, washing, or dressing were less likely to report that weekend opening would help.

Conclusion

Most people do not think they need weekend opening, but it may benefit certain patient groups, such as younger people in full-time work. Sunday opening, in addition to Saturday, is unlikely to improve access.