Can primary care be both patient-centred and community-led?

Examines the relationships between the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels in the NHS at the end of the fundholding period and considers their contemporary implications for primary care groups (PCGs) and local health care co-operatives (LHCCs). Fundholding achieved some success in challenging the way in which services were provided at the micro-level (the practice), but had a less marked effect in terms of changing service provision at the health authority (meso-) level or in developing collaborative working with trusts and health authorities in strategic decision making. The health authorities prioritized alternative models of devolved commissioning. Trusts regarded fundholders as a distraction who exerted influence and commanded trust management time disproportionate to their "market share". PCGs and LHCCs represent a shift back to the meso-level in service planning and purchasing. As such there is a risk that the micro-level benefits of fundholding and other forms of devolved commissioning will be lost, while uncertainties remain regarding the capacity of PCGs and LHCCs to incorporate GPs into a collaborative approach to strategic decision making.     

The effect of fundholding on prescribing and referral costs: a review of the evidence

In 1990 the UK Government announced the introduction of general practitioner (GP) fundholding whereby GPs were given a budget from which to purchase some health care services. The UK Government is at present piloting total fundholding which extends the partial model by allowing GPs in some practices to purchase all their health care services. If other countries intend to adopt schemes similar to the fundholding model then it is important that the success or otherwise of the UK experience informs their health care policy. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to review all the available quantitative evaluative evidence of the effect of (partial) fundholding on general practice. A total of 17 published quantitative studies evaluating fundholding were found, however, 8 of these were papers relating to 2 studies, therefore only 13 studies were reviewed. These studies examined the impact of fundholding only with regard to prescribing and referral behaviour. The results of these studies indicate that fundholders appeared to: (i) constrain their prescribing and referral costs; (ii) increase their generic prescribing rate; and (iii) not inflate their costs prior to joining the scheme. This review showed that there is a dearth of high quality research evidence evaluating fundholding referral behaviour whereas data on differences in prescribing costs is relatively abundant. The studies reviewed did not evaluate the effect of fundholding on patient health status, quality, patient choice or equity criteria. The difficulties involved in evaluating fundholding model presents a considerable challenge to the evaluation of total fundholding.     

The patient's view of general practice fundholding: results of a cross-sectional survey

We report the results of a survey of patients' awareness, attitudes and satisfaction regarding fundholding and related developments in primary care, and compare the responses of patients in fundholding and non-fundholding practices. (Six total fundholding general practices and two non-fundholding general practices in West Berkshire were included.) An anonymous postal questionnaire was sent to 1150 patients with joint pain aged 17-80, of whom 715 (63%) returned completed questionnaires. Few (17%) fundholding respondents had received information from their practice about fundholding or (36%) were aware of new or different services being offered but the majority had heard of fundholding and were able to describe it accurately. Satisfaction with GP services was high in both types of practice, but fundholding patients reported higher levels of satisfaction with getting a referral to a hospital specialist (FH: 81% vs. NFH: 63%), and with the length of time between referral and treatment (FH: 81% vs. NFH: 59%). A majority of patients in both types of practice wanted to be involved in decisions about the services available to them but only a third of patients thought that fundholding would make this easier. Fundholding patients were more likely to report being given enough choice about treatments available to them (51%) than their non-fundholding counterparts (35%). Fundholding patients had not perceived a reduction in quality of care as a result of budgetary pressures and were more satisfied with the process of referral to secondary care than their counterparts in non-fundholding practices. Patients in both types of practice felt that it was important to be involved in decisions about the services available to them, but few thought that this would be more likely as a result of fundholding. Provision of information to patients is a prerequisite for their involvement, but judging by the number of patients receiving any information about fundholding from their practices this aspect of the reforms does not seem to have been implemented.     

Evaluation of specialists'' outreach clinics in general practice in England: process and acceptability to patients, specialists, and general practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: The wider study aimed to evaluate specialists' outreach clinics in relation to their costs, processes, and effectiveness, including patients' and professionals' attitudes. The data on processes and attitudes are presented here. DESIGN: Self administered questionnaires were drawn up for patients, their general practitioners (GPs) and specialists, and managers in the practice. Information was sought from hospital trusts. The study formed a pilot phase prior to a wider evaluation. SETTING: Nine outreach clinics in general practices in England, each with a hospital outpatient department as a control clinic were studied. SUBJECTS: The specialties included were ear, nose, and throat surgery; rheumatology; and gynaecology. The subjects were the patients who attended either the outreach clinics or hospital outpatients clinics during the study period, the outreach patients' GPs, the outreach patients' and outpatients' specialists, the managers in the practices, and the NHS trusts which employed the specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process items included waiting lists, waiting times in clinics, number of follow up visits, investigations and procedures performed, treatment, health status, patients' and specialists' travelling times, and patients' and doctors' attitudes to, and satisfaction with, the clinic. RESULTS: There was no difference in the health status of patients in relation to the clinic site (ie, outreach and hospital outpatients' clinics) at baseline, and all but one of the specialists said there were no differences in casemix between their outreach and outpatients' clinics. Patients preferred, and were more satisfied with, care in specialists' outreach clinics in general practice, in comparison with outpatients' clinics. The outreach clinics were rated as more convenient than outpatients' clinics in relation to journey times; those outreach patients in work lost less time away from work than outpatients' clinic patients due to the clinic attendance. Length of time on the waiting list was significantly reduced for gynaecology patients; waiting times in clinics were lower for outreach patients than outpatients across all specialties. In addition, outreach patients were more likely to be first rather than follow up attenders; rheumatology outreach patients were more likely than hospital outpatients to receive therapy. GPs' referrals to hospital outpatients' clinics were greatly reduced by the availability of outreach clinics. Both specialists and GPs saw the main advantages of outreach clinics in relation to the greater convenience and better access to care for patients. Few of the specialists and GPs in the outreach practices held formal training and education sessions in the outreach clinic, although over half of the GPs felt that their skills/expertise had broadened as a result of the outreach clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The processes of care (waiting times, patient satisfaction, convenience to patients, follow up attendances) were better in outreach than in outpatients' clinics. However, waiting lists were only significantly reduced for gynaecology patients, despite both GPs and consultants reporting reduced waiting lists for patients as one of the main advantages of outreach. Whether these improvements merit the increased cost to the specialists (in terms of their increased travelling times and time spent away from their hospital base) and whether the development of what is, in effect, two standards of care between practices with and without outreach can be stemmed and the standard of care raised in all practices (eg, by sharing outreach clinics between GPs in an area) remain the subject of debate. As the data were based on the pilot study, the results should be viewed with some caution, although statistical power was adequate for comparisons of sites if not specialties.     

Changes in primary health care policy: the implications for joint commissioning with social services

Both the primary health care team (PHCT) and social services departments in the UK have undergone substantial changes to their organization and function since 1990. This paper looks at developments in primary health care policy that have affected the relationships between them regarding the commissioning of health and social care services. It focuses on evidence from seven initiatives designed to involve members of the PHCT in commissioning social care services. It examines some of the benefits and challenges of working together to commission services for health authority managers, GPs, district nurses, care managers and social work team managers in the light of impending changes to the PHCT, particularly the abolition of fundholding and the introduction of Primary Care Groups.     

The continuing care guidelines and primary and community health services

The confirmation of NHS responsibilities for continuing health care has important implications for primary and community health services. In early 1996, during the period of consultation on draft local policies and eligibility criteria, exploratory interviews were carried out with general practitioners (GPs), community nursing managers, primary care development officers and social services purchasers in three health authority areas. The interviews indicated that few GPs had responded to local consultation and were only slowly becoming aware of the implications for the provision and purchasing of primary and community health services. Moreover, local continuing care policies had apparently not addressed two issues which GPs and community nursing staff indicated were currently highly problematic: their responsibilities in relation to independent sector residential and nursing home patients; and the consequences for primary health and community nursing services of hospital discharge decisions. The need for purchasers and commissioners of health services, whether health authorities or GPs, to begin collecting information on patients' potential needs for continuing care services was widely recognised as an urgent priority.     

Primary care groups. The cultivated commissioner

The government's proposals for primary care groups assume GPs will be able to direct commissioning organisations more successfully than their fundholder predecessors. Under the previous system, practices incapable of managing a budget and purchasing health services were, in effect, ruled out of fundholding. Guidelines are needed specifying the skills and expertise required for membership of PCGs.     

General Practitioners with special clinical interests: a qualitative study of the views of doctors, health managers and patients

BACKGROUND: The difficulties with under-provision of doctors mean that alternative ways of providing services need to be developed. In the UK, some primary care doctors are now providing services traditionally only obtained through secondary care. The views of health care professionals, as well as patients, about these new services are currently unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To study the views of a variety of doctors, health managers and patients concerning the development of General Practitioners with special clinical interests. DESIGN: Qualitative using semi-structured audio-taped interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Health Service Managers, General Practice Registrars (GPRs), General Practitioners (GPs) with no special clinical interest, GPs with special clinical interests (GPSCIs), consultants (from specialties with and without GPSCIs) and patients who had attended a GPSCI clinic. SETTING: The North East of England. RESULTS: A range of positive benefits was identified for GPs with special clinical interests including enhanced job satisfaction and possibly increased recruitment and retention for general practice. They were expected to decrease hospital specialty waiting times and may address previously unmet needs. Patients appreciated the requirement of appropriate professional skill mixes for less serious conditions. Personal aspects of care were important for patients. Outcome measures appeared poorly defined. Negative aspects identified included a deskilling of the general pool of GPs and an increase in workload by treating previously untreated conditions. A variety of challenges in establishing these services (in particular proactive development of GPSCIs in areas of need, accreditation and governance) were uncovered and some potential solutions discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of GPs with special clinical interests has not been studied in any detail, and measures of success for these schemes, where they exist, may fail to address the wide range of potential positive and negative effects. Their cost effectiveness has been questioned, and yet in the future more of these types of schemes seem likely. GPs with special interests may be part of an increasingly flexible career structure that sees GPs and secondary care doctors and consultants having much more interchangeable career paths. Patients' views on the services were generally positive.     

The impact of budgets for gatekeeping physicians on patient satisfaction: evidence from fundholding

Between 1991 and 1998 English general practices had the option of holding budgets for prescribing and elective secondary care. Fundholding was reintroduced in 2005. We examine the effect of fundholding on patients' satisfaction with their practice, using a cross section of 4441 patients from 60 practices in the last year of fundholding (1998). We employ instrumental variables to allow for the endogeneity of fundholding. Patients of fundholders were less satisfied with the opening hours of their practice, their GP's knowledge of their medical history, with their GP's ability to arrange tests and willingness to refer to a specialist, and were more likely to agree that their doctor was more concerned about keeping costs down. Fundholder practices performed better on a number of process measures of care, and fundholding patients were more satisfied with additional non-medical services provided by the practice. The probability that patients were overall at least very satisfied with their GP practice was 0.073 (95% CI, 0.009-0.138) smaller in fundholding practices.     

The primary healthcare/hospital interface

In this paper, the author attempts to review the changing relationship between primary care and hospital care. In doing so, he draws on recent experience in the UK which has sought to strengthen the role of primary care services. This has centred on a new employment contract for general practitioners (GPs) and the introduction of the GP fundholding scheme. Both reforms represent a radical change from past practice and illustrate both the opportunities and the risks involved in introducing new financial arrangements in the primary care sector. Not only does he comment on UK experience, but he also make brief references to broader trends in health services reform in various other countries, giving the speech a truly international dimension.     

Recent developments in primary care in the United Kingdom: from competition to community-oriented primary care

In 1990, changes to the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom introduced a form of US-style competition that broadened the role of general practitioners (GPs). However, the changes (called GP fundholding) produced greater inequality between practices and reduced the capacity of the NHS to plan strategically. Alternative models have been developed that retain the increased influence of primary care, promote community-oriented primary care (COPC), and facilitate strategic planning. A recent proposal from the government turns away from the competition model of 1990 to encourage GP commissioning. It offers the opportunity to create an NHS that is led by a primary care agenda, including better links with the community, and a focus on public health and social services with the goal of improving the health of populations.     

Evaluation of an orthopaedic screening service in primary care

Historically, provision of orthopaedic services has been hospital based with GPs referring patients for specialist opinion. Growing demands on the service have led to new initiatives to reduce waiting times. One such initiative has been the introduction of orthopaedic assistants, usually physiotherapists, working with an extended scope of practice who see patients after referral to secondary care and determine the patients' ongoing management. Studies to date have examined the effect of an orthopaedic assistant working alongside a consultant in the hospital environment. This study describes the impact on the management of the orthopaedic caseload in one general practice resulting from "screening" prior to referral to secondary care by a physiotherapist with an extended scope of practice. It demonstrates the successful management of the majority of patients within primary care.     

Moving specialist care into the community: an initial evaluation

OBJECTIVES: To assess the likely impact on patients and local health economies of shifting specialist care from hospitals to the community in 30 demonstration sites in England. METHODS: The evaluation comprised: interviews with service providers at 30 sites, supplemented by interviews with commissioners, GPs and hospital doctors at 12 sites; economic case studies in six sites; and patient surveys at 30 sites plus at nine conventional outpatient services. Outcomes comprised: staff views of service organization and development, impact on primary and secondary care, and benefits for patients; cost per consultation and cost per patient in new services compared to estimates of the price of services if undertaken by hospitals; patients' views of waiting time, access, quality (technical and interpersonal), coordination and satisfaction. RESULTS: New services required high initial investment in staff, premises and equipment, and the support of hospital consultants. Most new services were added to existing hospital services so expanded capacity. Patient reported waiting times (6.7 versus 10.1 weeks; p = 0.001); technical quality of care (96.2 versus 94.5; p < 0.001), overall satisfaction (88.2 versus 85.4; p = 0.04); and access (72.2 versus 65.8; p = 0.001) were significantly better for new compared to conventional services but there was no significant difference in coordination or interpersonal quality of care. Some service providers expressed concerns about service quality. New services dealt with less complex conditions and undercut the price tariff applied to hospitals thus providing a cost saving to commissioners. There was some concern that expansion of new services might destabilize hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Moving specialist care into the community can improve patient access, particularly when new services are added to existing hospital services. Wider impacts on health care quality, capacity and cost merit closer scrutiny before rollout.     

Consultants' views of a district's services.

A postal questionnaire survey of consultants in the Bath Health District was conducted to establish a means for individual consultants to express their views about the provision of health services in the district, so that by working together a new relationship between the District Health Authority (DHA) as purchaser and the clinicians as providers of services could commence. A response rate of 84 per cent was achieved. The survey sought views on clinical and management issues to be used in the development of service agreements (contracts) and views on topics identified by general practitioners (GPs) as areas in need of improvement. Detail is given of results relating to out-patient services, issues of communication and the continuing role of community hospitals. Most consultants sanctioned the appropriateness of referrals by GPs to out-patient services but they identified some out-patient referrals as inappropriate. This justifies a further review of the out-patient services to be purchased by the DHA. Consultants were in agreement that there was scope for review of out-patient follow-ups. They agreed with GPs that discharge summaries could be provided within 24 hours of patient discharge to improve communication with GPs and that consultants should be available by pager to be contacted by GPs, but disagreed with GPs about the feasibility of giving patients on waiting lists a firm admission date at the time of going on the waiting lists. The majority of consultants were in favour of continuing support for community hospitals. They identified overall social value of community hospitals and greater clinical value of out-patient services than in-patient services in community hospitals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

香港屯门区医疗服务的评价

目的了解区内服务使用者对屯门区公立医疗服务的满意度及意见,借以提升屯门区公立医疗服务的质素。方法采用定额抽样法方法抽取屯门区门诊患者进行问卷调查,对调查项目的满意度情况进行统计分析。结果 54.2%受访者表示满意公立医院/诊所的医疗服务,37.9%表示一般满意度,7.9%表示不满意。需要改善的范畴主要为缩短专科门诊的候诊时间、增加专科门诊医生用于每个求诊个案的诊疗时间、缩短专科门诊的等候配药时间、增加区内复康设施及服务、加强医疗及复康资讯的流通等。结论应该改善医疗保健和社区卫生服务应提供便利,以满足更多居民的需要。     

Hospital Competition, GP Fundholders and Waiting Times in the UK Internal Market: The Case of Elective Surgery

In this paper I model the demand for and supply of elective surgery using a modified Hotelling framework in which time, money, and distance are determinants of the demand for hospital care. Hospitals compete with each other in terms of the waiting time and consequently treat a certain number of patients. The basic model of hospital competition is then extended to incorporate the general practitioner (GP) fundholding scheme whereby the GPs are allocated a budget with which to buy care for their patients. Waiting time increases when production of care becomes more expensive, when the benefit obtained from treatment increases, when the unit cost of distance decreases, and when the importance given to time as a performance indicator decreases. The higher the money price the lower the waiting time. Finally, the money price paid by the GP fundholders is greater than that paid by the Health Authorities and greater than the hospitals marginal cost of production. As a consequence, fundholding patients pay a zero time price while non-fundholding patients experiment a positive waiting time.     

Inequalities in provision of systematic care for patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND: GPs are now playing a greater role in the care of people with diabetes; however, the level of performance in primary care is variable. Practices with a recall system and diabetes mini-clinic have been shown to achieve better outcome of care of patients with diabetes. Systematic care also requires effective community-based diabetes services and access to primary care diabetes teams including dieticians, chiropodists, and optometrists and ophthalmologists. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine how services for people with diabetes are organized in primary care and whether there are inequalities in systematic care of people with diabetes. METHODS: A piloted postal questionnaire was sent to all 327 general practices in three health authorities in England serving a population of >2 million people. The three health authorities provided practice-based routine data relating to all general practices. RESULTS: A total of 264 (80.7%) practices replied; 236 (89.4%) employed a diabetes recall system and 196 (74.2%) reviewed their patients in a diabetes mini-clinic. Multiple regression showed that having a recall system was associated independently with a GP [odds ratio (OR) 6.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-14.9] or a practice nurse (OR 3.5; 1.4-8.7) with an interest in diabetes. Having a diabetes mini-clinic was associated independently with a GP with an interest in diabetes (OR 4.1; 2.1-7.8), a practice nurse having attended a diabetes course (OR 2.8, 1.3-6.2), practices with more partners (OR 1.2 per additional partner; 1.0-1.4) and fundholding practices (OR 2.6; 1.2-5.5). One hundred and sixteen (43.9%) practices had a chiropodist present in the practice, and 90 (34.1%) had a practice-based dietician. A chiropodist and a dietician were significantly more likely to be attached in training practices and in less deprived areas. A practice-based dietician was significantly associated with larger practices. CONCLUSIONS: Providing high quality primary care is essential to meeting the government's agenda of reducing inequalities. This study shows high levels of structured diabetes care which are not related to deprivation. However, practices in more deprived areas still lag behind practices in more affluent areas in terms of access to members of the diabetes team. To improve care of people with diabetes in primary care, deficiencies and inequalities highlighted in our survey must be addressed. The results of this survey will be valuable to primary care groups and organizations responsible for commissioning diabetes services.     

The Danish health care system from a British perspective.

The organisation and financing of the Danish health care system was evaluated within a framework of a SWOT analysis (analysis of strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) by a panel of five members with a background in health economics. The evaluation was based on reading an extensive amount of selected documents and literature on the Danish health care system, and a one-week visit to health care authorities, providers and key persons. The present paper includes the main findings by one of the panel members. The dominance of tax financing helps to achieve control over the level of health care expenditure, as well as securing equity in financing the services. The reliance on local government for financing and running health care has both advantages and disadvantages, and the split between county and municipal responsibility leads to problems of co-ordination. The remuneration of general practitioners by a mix of capitation payment and fee for services has the advantage of capping expenditure whilst leaving the GPs with an incentive to compete for patients by providing them with good services. The GP service is remarkably economical. The hospital sector displays much strength, but there seem to be problems with respect to: (i) perceived lack of resources and waiting lists; (ii) impersonal care, lack of continuity of care and failures in communication between patients and staff; (iii) management problems and sometimes demotivated staff. The relationship between patients and providers is facilitated by free access to GPs and absence of any charges for hospital treatment. The biggest threat is continuation of avoidable illness caused by poor health habits in the population. The biggest opportunity is to strengthen public health measures to tackle these poor health habits.     

Does general practitioner involvement in commissioning maternity care make a difference?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of general practitioners' commissioning of maternity services on women's experiences of care and on resource use, and to consider the implications for primary care commissioning. METHOD: Comparison of women's experiences and resource use between 11 commissioning and 10 non-commissioning general practices. Face-to-face interviews with 212 staff in general practices, National Health Service trusts and health authorities between 1996 and 1998 to establish how maternity care was organised. Women's experience of information, choice, control and resource use obtained by questionnaire mailed 4 weeks post-partum. Data were analysed using multi-level modelling to adjust for case-mix differences. RESULTS: After two reminders, 1957 women (62%) responded to the questionnaire (inter-practice range 52-81%). There were no significant differences in women's experience of care or their resource use between commissioning and non-commissioning practices. Commissioning practices were more likely to be associated with more vertically integrated models of service organisation, but responses to only three of 21 questions about experience of information, choice and control over care, or about resource use, differed between the four models of service organisation identified. CONCLUSIONS: The expectation that giving primary care organisations responsibility for commissioning care will result in improved patients' experiences of care or better use of resources should be treated with caution. The presence of strong national policy may be equally important. Models of service organisation are not proxies for quality of care. The most powerful force shaping patients' experiences of care may be health care professionals' ability to translate national policy into local services.     

Skill-mix. Seams good to us

Greater use of GPs, both in general practice and hospitals, could reduce waiting times for hospital services. PCGs might consider developing some specialist services. The development of GP specialists should be considered. Allowing GPs with a special interest in surgery to perform some hospital surgery would reduce pressure on consultants' lists.