Improving access for patients – a practice manager questionnaire

BACKGROUND: The administrative and professional consequences of access targets for general practices, as detailed in the new GMS contract, are unknown. This study researched the effect of implementing the access targets of the new GP contract on general practice appointment systems, and practice manager satisfaction in a UK primary health care setting. METHODS: A four-part postal questionnaire was administered. The questionnaire was modified from previously validated questionnaires and the findings compared with data obtained from the Western Health and Social Services Board (WHSSB) in N Ireland. Practice managers from the 59 general practices in the WHSSB responded to the questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a 94.9% response rate. Practice managers were generally satisfied with the introduction of access targets for patients. Some 57.1% of responding practices, most in deprived areas (Odds ratio 3.13 -95% CI 1.01 – 9.80, p = 0.0256) had modified their appointment systems. Less booking flexibility was reported among group practices (p = 0.006), urban practices (p < 0.001) and those with above average patient list sizes (p < 0.001). Receptionists had not received training in patient appointment management in a quarter of practices. Practices with smaller list sizes were more likely than larger ones to utilise nurses in seeing extra patients (p = 0.007) or to undertake triage procedures (p = 0.062). CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated the ability of general practices within the WHSSB to adjust to a demanding component of the new GP contract. Issues relating to the flexibility of patient appointment booking systems, receptionists' training and the development of the primary care nursing role were highlighted by the study

Not so different after all? Comparing patients attending general practice-based locally enhanced services for sexual health with patients attending genitourinary medicine.

We did a cross-sectional survey of patients attending genitourinary (GU) medicine clinics (n = 933) and general practice-based Locally Enhanced Services for Sexual Health (GP-LESSH, n = 111) in Cornwall, England, in 2009/2010, to compare patients' characteristics and experiences. Patients completed a pen-and-paper questionnaire that was then linked to an extract of their clinical data. GP-LESSH patients took longer both to seek and to receive care: medians of nine and seven days, respectively, versus GU medicine patients: medians of seven and one day, respectively. GP-LESSH patients were less likely than GU medicine patients to report symptoms (19.6% versus 30.6%) and sexual risk behaviours (33.3% versus 44.7% reported new partners) since recognizing needing to seek care; 5.0% versus 10.2% were men who have sex with men). However, they were equally likely to have sexually transmitted infections (STIs) diagnosed (23.3% versus 24.8%). As GP-LESSH may operate infrequently, local services must work collaboratively to ensure that those seeking care for suspected STIs receive it promptly. Failing to do so facilitates avoidable STI transmission

Homeward bound or bound for a home? Assessing the capacity of dementia patients to make decisions about hospital discharge: Comparing practice with legal standards

Background This article stems from a larger project which considers ways of improving assessments of capacity and judgements about best interests in connection with people with dementia admitted to acute hospitals with respect to decisions about place of residence. Aims Our aim is to comment on how assessments of residence capacity are actually performed on general hospital wards compared with legal standards for the assessment of capacity set out in the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). Method Our findings are grounded in ethnographic ward-based observations and in-depth interviews conducted in three hospital wards, in two hospitals (acute and rehabilitation), within two NHS healthcare trusts in the North of England over a period of nine months between 2008 and 2009. Twenty-nine patient cases were recruited to the study. We also draw from broader conceptions of capacity found in domestic and international legal, medical, ethical and social science literature. Results Our findings suggest that whilst professionals profess to be familiar with broad legal standards governing the assessment of capacity under the MCA, these standards are not routinely applied in practice in general hospital settings when assessing capacity to decide place of residence on discharge from hospital. We discuss whether the criteria set out in the MCA and the guidance in its Code of Practice are sufficient when assessing residence capacity, given the particular ambiguities and complexities of this capacity. Conclusions We conclude by suggesting that more specific legal standards are required when assessing capacity in this particular context

Why is the General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) Contract that underpins primary eye care in the UK contrary to the public health interest?

The model for delivery of primary eye care in Europe varies from country to country with differing reliance on ophthalmologists, optometrists and dispensing opticians. Comparative analysis of models has tended to focus on interprofessional working arrangements, training and regulatory issues, rather than on whether a particular model is effective for delivering public health goals for that country. National Health Service (NHS) primary eye care services in the UK are predominantly provided under a General Ophthalmic Services (GOS) Contract between the NHS and practice owners (Contractors). Over two-thirds of sight tests conducted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and all in Scotland are performed under a GOS Contract, however many people entitled to a GOS sight test do not take up their entitlement. The fee paid for sight tests conducted under a GOS Contract in England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not cover the full cost of conducting the examination. The shortfall must be made up through profits of sale of optical appliances but this business model can be a deterrent to establishing practices within socioeconomically deprived communities, and can also be a barrier to uptake of sight tests, even though many people are entitled to a NHS optical voucher towards the cost of spectacles or contact lenses. This paper critiques the GOS Contracts within the UK. We argue that aspects of the way the GOS Contract is implemented are contrary to the public health interest and that different approaches are needed to address eye health inequalities and to reduce preventable sight loss