Management in general practice: the challenge of the new General Medical Services contract.

BACKGROUND: Managers in general practice perform a variety of roles, from purely administrative to higher-level strategic planning. There has been little research investigating in detail how they perform these roles and the problems that they encounter. The new General Medical Services (GMS) contract contains new management challenges and it is not clear how practices will meet these. AIM: To improve understanding of the roles performed by managers in general practice and to consider the implications of this for the implementation of the new GMS contract. Design of study: In-depth qualitative case studies covering the period before and immediately after the vote in favour of the new GMS contract. SETTING: Three general practices in England, chosen using purposeful sampling. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with all clinical and managerial personnel in each practice, participant and non-participant observation, and examination of documents. RESULTS: Understanding about what constitutes the legitimate role of managers in general practice varies both within and between practices. Those practices in the study that employed a manager to work at a strategic level with input into the direction of the organisation demonstrated significant problems with this in practice. These included lack of clarity about what the legitimate role of the manager involved, problems relating to the authority of managers in the context of a partnership, and lack of time available to them to do higher-level work. In addition, general practitioners (GPs) were not confident about their ability to manage their managers' performance. CONCLUSION: The new GMS contract will place significant demands on practice management. These results suggest that it cannot be assumed that simply employing a manager with high-level skills will enable these demands to be met; there must first be clarity about what the manager should be doing, and attention must be directed at questions about the legitimacy enjoyed by such a manager, the limits of his or her authority, and the management of performance in this role.     

Primary care funding, contract status, and outcomes: an observational study

BACKGROUND: The introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides a quantitative way of assessing quality of care in general practice. We explore the achievements of general practice in the first year of the QOF, with specific reference to practice funding and contract status. AIM: To determine the extent to which differences in funding and contract status affect quality in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional observational study using practice data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. SETTING: One hundred and sixty-four practices from six primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. METHOD: Practice data for all 164 practices were collated for income and contract status. The outcome measure was QOF score for the year 2004-2005. All data were analysed statistically. RESULTS: Contract status has an impact on practice funding, with Employed Medical Services (EMS) and Personal Medical Services (PMS) practices receiving higher levels of funding than General Medical Services (GMS) practices (P<0.001). QOF scores also vary according to contract status. Higher funding levels in EMS practices are associated with lower QOF scores (P=0.04); while GMS practices exhibited the opposite trend, with higher-funded practices achieving better quality scores (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: GMS practices are the most efficient contract status, achieving high quality scores for an average of pound 62.51 per patient per year. By contrast, EMS practices are underperforming, achieving low quality scores for an average of pound 105.37 per patient per year. Funding and contract status are therefore important factors in determining achievement in the QOF.     

A qualitative study of the cultural changes in primary care organisations needed to implement clinical governance.

BACKGROUND: It is commony claimed that changing the culture of health organisations is a fundamental prerequisite for improving the National Health Service (NHS). Little is currently known about the nature or importance of culture and cultural change in primary care groups and trusts (PCG/Ts) or their constituent general practices. AIMS: To investigate the importance of culture and cultural change for the implementation of clinical governance in general practice by PCG/Ts, to identify perceived desirable and undesirable cultural attributes of general practice, and to describe potential facilitators and barriers to changing culture. DESIGN: Qualitative: case studies using data derived from semi-structured interviews and review of documentary evidence. SETTING: Fifty senior non-clinical and clinical managers from 12 purposely sampled PCGs or trusts in England. RESULTS: Senior primary care managers regard culture and cultural change as fundamental aspects of clinical governance. The most important desirable cultural traits were the value placed on a commitment to public accountability by the practices, their willingness to work together and learn from each other, and the ability to be self-critical and learn from mistakes. The main barriers to cultural change were the high level of autonomy of practices and the perceived pressure to deliver rapid measurable changes in general practice. CONCLUSIONS: The culture of general practice is perceived to be an important component of health system reform and quality improvement. This study develops our understanding of a changing organisational culture in primary care; however, further work is required to determine whether culture is a useful practical lever for initiating or managing improvement.     

Practice size and quality attainment under the new GMS contract: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new General Medical Services contract, for the first time, incentivises certain areas of general practice workload over others. The ability of practices to deliver high quality care may be related to the size of the practice itself. AIM: To explore the relationship between practice size and points attained in the QOF. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional analyses of routinely available data. SETTING: Urban general practice in mainland Scotland. METHOD: QOF points and disease prevalence were obtained for all urban general practices in Scotland (n = 638) and linked to data on the practice, GP and patient population. The relationship between QOF point attainment, disease prevalence and practice size was examined using univariate statistical analyses. RESULTS: Smaller practices were more likely to be located in areas of socioeconomic deprivation; had patients with poorer health; and were less likely to participate in voluntary practice-based quality schemes. Overall, smaller practices received fewer QOF points compared to larger practices (P = 0.003), due to lower point attainment in the organisational domain (P = 0.002). There were no differences across practice size in the other domains of the QOF, including clinical care. Smaller practices reported higher levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and mental health conditions and lower levels of asthma, epilepsy and hypothyroidism. There was no difference in the reported prevalence of hypertension or coronary heart disease (CHD) across practices, in contrast to CHD mortality for patients aged under 70 years, where the mortality rate was 40% greater for single-handed practices compared with large practices. CONCLUSIONS: Although smaller practices obtained fewer points than larger practices under the QOF, this was due to lower scores in the organisational domain of the contract rather than to lower scores for clinical care. Single-handed practices, in common with larger practices serving more deprived populations, reported lower than expected CHD prevalence in their practice populations. Our results suggest that smaller practices continue to provide clinical care of comparable quality to larger practices but that they may need increased resources or support, particularly in the organisational domain, to address unmet need or more demanding QOF criteria.     

A retrospective review of significant events reported in one district in 2004-2005.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a key issue in primary care. Significant event analysis (SEA) is a long established method of improving safety. In 2004, SEA was introduced as part of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new general medical services (GMS) contract. AIM: To review SEAs submitted for the QOF by general practices for a primary care trust (PCT) in 2004-2005. DESIGN OF STUDY: A retrospective review of SEAs. SETTING: St Helens PCT, Merseyside, North West England, UK (185 000 patients), now part of Halton and St Helens PCT. METHOD: Three hundred and thirty-seven QOF-reported SEAs were reviewed from 32 (91%) of a total of 35 St Helens PCT practices (mean 10.5, range 4-17). RESULTS: Practices identified learning points in 89% of SEAs. Twenty-two of 32 (69%) practices successfully performed SEA and required no further support. Four practices identified learning points but needed further facilitation in implementing change or actions arising from SEA. Six practices had significant difficulties with SEA processes and were referred for extra SEA training locally. Ninety (26.7%) of all significant events were classified as patient-safety incidents. Of these, 22 (6.5%) were 'serious or life threatening' and 67 (19.9%) were 'potentially serious'. Ninety-six (28.5%) of the significant events related to medicines management issues; and 63 (18.7%) had key learning points for partnership organisations. Main outcome measures were review of SEA process as a team learning event; QOF significant event criteria; National Patient Safety Agency classification of significant events, and category of patient-safety incidents. CONCLUSION: SEA in general practice is a valuable clinical governance and educational tool with potential patient safety benefits. Most practices performed SEA successfully but there were performance concerns and patient-safety issues were highlighted. This review emphasises the need for primary care organisations to be able to analyse and share SEAs effectively.     

Appraisal of family doctors: an evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Appraisal has evolved to become a key component of workforce management. However, it is not clear from existing proposals for appraisal of doctors whether employers, health authorities or primary care organisations should take responsibility for appraisal processes. AIMS: To evaluate the introduction of a pilot peer appraisal system in general practice and to gain insight into the reactions of appraisers and doctors. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured telephone interviews combined with participant surveys and documentary analysis. SETTING: Five health authorities in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners (GPs) appointed as appraisers and volunteer practitioners (doctors). METHOD: Twenty-six appraisers were appointed and given training in the appraisal process, each appraising an average of eight individuals. Appraisers and appraised doctors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews and completed separate participant questionnaires. RESULTS: GPs willingly undertook peer appraisal in a volunteer-based pilot study where participation was recompensed. The majority of participating clinicians were positive, with appraisers reporting the most gain. Appraisers were enthusiastic, provided the process remained non-judgemental and did not threaten or burden their colleagues. Appraised doctors were less enthusiastic but the most significant perceived benefit was the opportunity to reflect on individual performance with a supportive colleague. There were, however, repeated concerns about time, confusion with revalidation and personal development plans, worries about including health and probity queries, and an opinion that the process would be entirely different if conducted with non-volunteers or by representatives of 'management'. CONCLUSION: This study illustrated three fundamental problems for appraisal systems in general practice. First, there is as yet no organisational hierarchy in general practice. Perhaps the aggregation of practices into primary care organisations will generate a hierarchy. Second, the question of who conducts appraisals then becomes pertinent; this study illustrates a professionally-led peer appraisal model. Third, the spectre of summative assessment causes problems in appraisal schemes. Typically, only mutually agreed summaries are kept for future use in appraisal systems (for example, for promotion or discipline). So the proposal to use GP annual appraisal documentation as the basis of a summative 'revalidation' exercise is at odds with orthodox personnel practice, which regards appraisal as a formative process.     

Workload and reward in the Quality and Outcomes Framework of the 2004 general practice contract

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the 2004 UK General Medical Services (GMS) contract links up to 20% of practice income to performance measured against 146 quality indicators. AIM: To examine the distribution of workload and payment in the clinical domains of the QOF, and to compare payment based on true prevalence to the implemented system applying an adjusted prevalence factor. We aimed also to assess the performance of the implemented payment system against its three stated objectives: to reduce variation in payment compared to a system based on true prevalence, to fairly link reward to workload, and finally, to help tackle health inequalities. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective analysis of publicly available QOF data. SETTING: Nine hundred and three GMS general practices in Scotland. METHOD: Comparison of payment under the implemented Adjusted Disease Prevalence Factor, and under an alternative True Disease Prevalence Factor. RESULTS: Variation in total clinical QOF payment per 1000 patients registered is significantly reduced compared to a payment system based on true prevalence. Payment is poorly related to workload in terms of the number of patients on the disease register, with up to 44 fold variation in payment per patient on the disease register for practices delivering the same quality of care. Practices serving deprived populations are systematically penalized under the implemented payment system, compared to one based on true prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The implemented adjustment for prevalence succeeds in its aim of reducing variation in practice income, but at the cost of making the relationship between workload and reward highly inequitable and perpetuating the inverse care law.     

Respiratory medicine.

The General Medical Services (GMS) contract has focused the attention of United Kingdom (UK) general practitioners (GPs) on the provision of high quality routine care for patients with chronic disease. The quality markers defined by the contract endorse the need for objective diagnosis and structured care recommended by the British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (BTS-SIGN) guideline for the management of asthma and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline on the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this paper the key recommendations of these guidelines and their implementation in the pragmatic world of general practice are discussed, with specific focus on diagnosis, monitoring, management, self-management and delivery of care.     

Estimated prevalence of people with learning disabilities: template for general practice.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, a white paper set out a commitment to ensure that people with a learning disability receive equal access to health services, with an expectation that general practices would have identified all people with a learning disability registered with the practice by June 2004. AIM: To outline the development of a template to create practice-based registers of people with learning disabilities in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: The study was prospective, employing a template to identify patients in general practice with a learning disability. The study used capture-recapture methodology to estimate the prevalence of learning disability in the population. SETTING: General practices in Leeds. METHOD: A template was developed that uses Read code searches of practices' electronic medical records, along with practice knowledge to identify patients who have a learning disability. RESULTS: The tool was piloted in 30 general practices in Leeds and validated against a city-wide database of people with learning disability. There was a wide variation between the practices in terms of how many people were identified, with the average being 0.4% of the practice population. Combined with validation from the city-wide database, this increased to 0.7%. CONCLUSION: The template provides a valuable tool for general practices to begin developing a practice-based register of patients with a learning disability. This is particularly timely in view of the revised General Medical Services contract Quality and Outcomes Framework indicator, stimulating practices to produce a register of patients with learning disability. Use of a common definition for learning disability is needed to improve consistency in identification across practices.     

Psychological morbidity in general practice managers: a descriptive and explanatory study.

BACKGROUND: Proposals to establish an occupational health service for primary care should be informed by knowledge of the health needs of general practice employees. AIM: To determine the prevalence and occupational correlates of stress, anxiety, and depression among practice managers in two contrasting health authorities in England. METHOD: A postal questionnaire, soliciting information about stress induced by work-related activities, which contained the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), was sent to all 149 practice managers in two health authorities areas of south-east England. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 111 (75%) managers; 41/111 (37%) achieved GHQ case status with scores on HADS indicating that 49/111 (44%) classified themselves as anxious and 19/111 (17%) as depressed. The likelihood of being a case was found to be higher in managers from practices with larger numbers of GP partners (P = 0.02) and in managers from practices not in receipt of deprivation payments (P = 0.03). Multiple logistic regression showed that managers' perceived difficulties with general practice administration duties (relative ratio [RR] = 3.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22-8.75) and dealings with GPs (RR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.03-3.34) were the most powerful predictors of case status. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire uncovered high prevalences of self-reported stress, anxiety, and depression in general practice managers. Although the vast majority of National Health Service (NHS) employees have access to an occupational health service, no such source of support exists for those working in general practice. The NHS needs to establish an occupational health service that caters to the needs of clinical and non-clinical members of primary health care teams.     

General practice patients' beliefs about their symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Patients' beliefs about symptoms are major influences on consultation and its consequences. However, little information is available about the beliefs of patients when they consult their general practitioner (GP). AIM: To describe and quantify the range of beliefs of patients about their symptoms before consultation, and to test the hypothesis that patients who attribute symptoms to stress or lifestyle would expect less benefit than others from physical medicine but more from lifestyle change and emotional support. METHOD: Interviews with 100 patients attending one of two general practices were used to form a questionnaire, which was completed by 406 patients attending one of three general practices in contrasting areas of Greater London. This measured the frequency of specific beliefs about the causes of their symptoms and about effective forms of help. Patients were seen before their consultation. RESULTS: The most common aetiological beliefs concerned stress and lifestyle. In general, the mechanisms underlying symptoms were thought to be disturbances in bodily functioning rather than pathological processes. The most valued form of help was explanation and discussion of symptoms. Nevertheless, about half the patients expected benefit from medication and only slightly fewer from hospital investigation or treatment. Patients who attributed symptoms to stress or lifestyle were no less likely to expect help from medication or specialist referral, but they were more likely to see benefit in explanation and counselling or lifestyle change. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest hypotheses for future research into the effects that patients' attributions of their symptoms to stress and lifestyle have on their health care demands, emphasize the importance of routinely assessing patients' beliefs on consulting the GP, and provide information that can help to direct this assessment in the individual case.     

Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison.

BACKGROUND: Patients' evaluations can be used to improve health care and compare general practice in different health systems. AIM: To identify aspects of general practice that are generally evaluated positively by patients and to compare opinions of patients in different European countries on actual care provision. METHOD: An internationally-validated questionnaire was distributed to and completed by patients in 10 European countries. A stratified sample of 36 practices per country, with at least 1080 patients per country, was included. A set of 23 validated questions on evaluations of different aspects of care was used, as well as questions on age, sex, overall health status, and frequency of visiting the GP. RESULTS: The patient sample included 17,391 patients in 10 different countries; the average response rate was 79% (range = 67% to 89%). In general, patients visiting their general practitioner (GP) were very positive about the care provided. For most of the 23 selected aspects of care more than 80% viewed care as good or excellent; in particular, keeping records confidential, GP listening to patients, time during consultations, and quick services in case of urgent problems were evaluated positively. Patients were relatively negative about organisational aspects of care. The evaluations in different countries were largely similar, with some interesting differences; for instance, service and organisational aspects were evaluated more positively in fee-for-service health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in Europe are positive about general practice but improvements in practice management in some countries are requested. More research is needed to study the complex field of differences in expectations and evaluations between countries with different health systems.     

Measuring patient satisfaction for the Quality and Outcomes Framework.

The general medical services (GMS) contract Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) awards up to 70 points for measuring patient satisfaction with either the Improving Practices Questionnaire (IPQ) or the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ). The usefulness of data collected depends crucially on the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument. The literature was reviewed to assess the validity and reliability of these questionnaires. The literature was searched for peer-review publications that assessed the reliability and validity of the IPQ and GPAQ, using online literature databases and hand-searching of references up to June 2006. One paper claimed to assess the validity and reliability of the IPQ. No paper reported the reliability and validity of the GPAQ, but three papers assessed an earlier version (the GPAS). No published evidence could be found that the IPQ, GPAQ, or GPAS have been validated against external criteria. The GPAS was found to have acceptable reliability and test-retest reliability. Neither of the instruments mandated by the GMS contract has been formally assessed for reliability: their reproducibility remains unknown. The validation of the two questionnaires approved by the QOF to assess patient satisfaction with general practice appears to be suboptimal. It is recommended that future patient experience surveys are piloted for validity and reliability before being implemented widely.     

Factors associated with immunisation coverage and timeliness in New Zealand

Background

Immunisation coverage in New Zealand is lower than what is necessary to prevent large epidemics of pertussis. Primary care is where most immunisation delivery occurs. General practices vary in their structure and organisation, both in a general sense and specifically with respect to immunisation delivery.

Aim

To identify the structural and organisational characteristics of general practices associated with higher immunisation coverage and more timely immunisation delivery.

Design of study

A random sample of practices during 2005 and 2006.

Setting

General practices in the Auckland and Midland regions, with over-sampling of indigenous Maori governance practices.

Method

Practice immunisation coverage and timeliness were measured. Primary care practice characteristics relevant to immunisation delivery by the practice were described. Associations of these practice characteristics with higher practice immunisation coverage and more timely immunisation delivery were determined.

Results

A total of 124 (61%) of 205 eligible practices were recruited. A median (25th to 75th centile) of 71% (57–77%) of registered children at each practice were fully immunised, and 56% (40–64%) had no immunisation delay. In multivariate analyses, both practice immunisation coverage (P<0.001) and timeliness (P<0.001) decreased with increased social deprivation. After adjustment for socioeconomic deprivation, region, and governance, immunisation coverage and timeliness were better at practices that enrolled children at a younger age (coverage: P = 0.002; timeliness P = 0.007), used one of the four available practice management systems (coverage: P<0.001; timeliness: P = 0.006), and had no staff shortages (coverage: P = 0.027; timeliness: P = 0.021).

Conclusion

Practice immunisation coverage and timeliness vary widely in New Zealand. General organisational and structural aspects of general practices are key determinants of general practice immunisation delivery.     

Changes in general practice organization: survey of general practitioners'' views on the 1990 contract and fundholding.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners' views on two major changes in the organization of general practice--the 1990 contract for general practitioners and fundholding, introduced in 1991--have not been researched in any great detail. AIM: A study in 1993 sought to investigate the views of general practitioners from group practices and of single-handed general practitioners, in family health services authority areas with different socioeconomic characteristics, on the 1990 contract for general practitioners, fundholding and the effects of these two changes in general practice organization. METHOD: One general practitioner partner from each of 323 group practices in six family health services authority areas of England was invited for interview and 142 single-handed general practitioners in the study areas were sent a postal questionnaire. The interview and questionnaire sought general practitioners' views on the 1990 contract and fundholding, reasons for their opinions, and views on the effects of these reforms on workload and the quality of service. Other information was recorded on fundholding status, workload pressures, outreach clinics, budget surpluses, retirement plans, and opinions on a salaried service. RESULTS: A total of 260 group practice general practitioners (80%) participated in the study and 80 single-handed general practitioners (56%) returned questionnaires, 78 of which could be analysed. Over half of all respondents were opposed or strongly opposed to both the 1990 contract and fundholding. However, despite this opposition, a sizeable minority of group practice practitioners (38%) agreed that the quality of services provided had improved or considerably improved since the 1990 contract. Workload appeared to have increased, with the proportion of respondents who reported being always under pressure increasing from 12% in 1987 to 41% in 1993. All but one respondent considered administration to have increased. Some respondents were considering early retirement. One of the solutions proposed to alleviate problems in inner city general practice, a salaried service, received little support, even from those general practitioners working in areas which might be expected to benefit. CONCLUSION: Dissatisfaction of general practitioners with the National Health Service reforms was expressed in continued opposition, in concerns about workload and levels of administration, and in a desire to retire early. Suitable ways of improving general practitioner morale must be sought.     

Changes in patients' attitudes towards the management of minor ailments

BACKGROUND: Patients' attitudes towards the management of minor ailments influence help-seeking behaviour. Up-to-date information about patients' attitudes is valuable for understanding changes in help-seeking behaviour. AIM: To describe changes in patients' attitudes between 1987 and 2001, and to explain the relationship between patients' attitudes and attributes of practices, practitioners and patients. DESIGN: Two cross-sectional, Dutch National Surveys of General Practice (1987 and 2001; n = 9579 and n = 8405 patients, respectively). SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients' attitudes were evaluated in health interviews. Data were analysed using multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: In 2001, patients' attitudes showed a shift away from consulting their GP for minor ailments. Attitudes are uniform across different types of practice, and mainly differ between patients. In 1987 as well as in 2001 the factors associated with firm beliefs about the benefits of GP's care in case of minor ailments were male, older age, lower educational level, a non-Western cultural background, and a visit to the GP in the past 2 months. Furthermore, the association between health status and beliefs about GPs dealing with minor ailments is more marked in 2001. Compared to 1987, the influences of GPs and the practice are more intertwined in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' attitudes towards the management of minor ailments have changed over the years, which implies that strategic action by the profession and the government has affected the way the public uses primary care. However, a marginal group of patients (elderly, less-educated, non-Western) is lagging behind this trend, and continuing to consult GPs for minor ailments.     

The development of a short instrument to identify common unmet needs in older people in general practice.

BACKGROUND: No structured needs assessment tool exists that is appropriate for older people and also suitable for use in routine consultations in general practice. AIMS: To engage older people in the development of a brief, valid, practical, and acceptable instrument to help identify common unmet needs suitable for use in routine clinical practice in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: User involvement in a multi-stages approach to heuristic development. SETTING: General practices, voluntary groups, and community organisations in north and central London. METHOD: Subjects included patients aged 65 years and over in purposively selected practices, voluntary organisations for older people in the same localities, community organisations involving older people, general practitioners and community nurses. Data were collected through mixed methodology interviews using a structured assessment tool (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), a postal questionnaire, and focus groups. Synthesis and interpretation of results was done through a consensus conference followed by a Delphi process involving primary care professionals. RESULTS: Five domains of unmet need were identified as priority areas by all three data collection methods, the consensus conference, and the Delphi process: senses (vision and hearing), physical ability (mobility and falls), incontinence, cognition, and emotional distress (depression and anxiety) (SPICE). CONCLUSIONS: Public involvement in the design of clinical tools allowed the development of a brief assessment instrument that could potentially identify common, important, and tractable unmet needs in older people.     

Quality measurement of care for people with type 2 diabetes in Tayside, Scotland: implications for the new UK general practice contract.

BACKGROUND: The new United Kingdom general practice contract proposes that up to a third of general practitioners' income will come from achieving quality targets. AIM: To examine selected quality markers in terms of their robustness to case-mix variation and chance effects, and in the attribution of quality to practices. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were extracted from a population-based diabetes clinical information system in Tayside, Scotland, for patients with type 2 diabetes registered in 67 practices with complete ascertainment. RESULTS: Most practices would have received relatively high levels of payment for the process measures examined. Outcome measures appeared more challenging. Case-mix adjustment for age, sex, and postcode-assigned deprivation altered measured performance by up to 7%, but payment by up to 14%. Despite no strong evidence of any real difference in quality, chance effects meant that there was greater apparent variability for smaller practices from year to year. Hospital attendance was common, but highly variable between practices. CONCLUSION: Case-mix adjustment to allow fairer comparison is routine in national performance indicators, and ignoring it risks making the new contract quality framework inequitable. Because of chance effects, smaller practices may have greater year-to-year variability in income. Reflecting National Health Service structure, the new contract provides no incentives for integrated care and offers a perverse incentive to refer more patients to hospital. There are trade-offs between the validity of measures, and the cost and bureaucracy of collecting data. The planned evaluation of the new contrast should examine the effectiveness and equity of the quality framework, and rapidly act on deficiencies found.     

Missed appointments in primary care: questionnaire and focus group study of health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The issue of missed appointments in primary care is important for patients and staff. Little is known about how missed appointments, and the people who miss them, are managed in primary care, or about effective strategies for managing missed appointments. AIMS: To understand the perceptions of primary care staff as to why patients miss appointments, to determine how these perceptions influence their management, and to explore the merit of different management strategies. Design of study: A postal questionnaire survey and focus group interviews. SETTING: General practices in Yorkshire. RESULTS: Missed appointments were regarded as an important problem. Patient factors rather than practice factors were perceived as most important in causing missed appointments. Intervention strategies appeared to be driven by perceptions of why patients miss appointments. Negative attitudes, embodied in terms such as "offenders" to refer to those who missed appointments were prevalent, and favoured intervention strategies included punishing the patient in some way. Receptionists believed that general practitioners should address the issue of the missed appointment with the patient. General practitioners felt guarded about addressing missed appointments with their patients in case it affected the doctor-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: People who miss appointments were viewed negatively by primary care staff, and most of the reasons for missed appointments were focused on patients. These beliefs underpinned intervention strategies aimed mainly at punishment. Since there is no evidence base concerning interventions that are effective in reducing missed appointments, these negative attitudes may not be beneficial to staff or their patients.     

What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: General practice is currently experiencing a large number of developments. Studies of patient satisfaction are required to guide the changes that many general practitioners are introducing. AIM: A study set out to examine the characteristics of general practices that influence patient satisfaction. METHOD: In 1991-92, a surgery satisfaction questionnaire of demonstrated reliability and validity was administered to 220 patients in each of 89 general practices. A further questionnaire completed by a member of practice staff collected information about practice characteristics including total list size, number, age and sex of practice partners, training status, fundholding status, presence of a practice manager and whether there was a personal list system. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were undertaken to identify those practice characteristics that influenced patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The mean of the response rates of patients completing questionnaires in each practice was 82%. An increasing total list size of patients registered with practices was associated with decreasing levels of general satisfaction and decreased satisfaction with accessibility, availability, continuity of care, medical care and premises. The presence of a personal list system was associated with increased levels of general satisfaction and increased satisfaction with accessibility, availability, continuity of care and medical care. Training practices were associated with decreased levels of general satisfaction and decreased satisfaction with availability and continuity of care. CONCLUSION: The patients of practices in this study preferred smaller practices, non-training practices and practices that had personal list systems. Practice organization should be reviewed in order to ensure that the trend towards larger practices that provide a wider range of services does not lead to a decline in patient satisfaction. General practitioners should have personal list systems and consider the creation of several personal teams within the practice consisting of small numbers of doctors, receptionists and practice nurses.