RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Patients’ experiences of the choice of GP practice pilot, 2012/2013: a mixed methods evaluation
JF BMJ Open
JO BMJ Open
FD British Medical Journal Publishing Group
SP e006090
DO 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006090
VO 5
IS 2
A1 Stefanie Tan
A1 Bob Erens
A1 Michael Wright
A1 Nicholas Mays
YR 2015
UL http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/2/e006090.abstract
AB Objectives To investigate patients’ experiences of the choice of general practitioner (GP) practice pilot. Design Mixed-method, cross-sectional study. Setting Patients in the UK National Health Service (NHS) register with a general practice responsible for their primary medical care and practices set geographic boundaries. In 2012/2013, 43 volunteer general practices in four English NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) piloted a scheme allowing patients living outside practice boundaries to register as an out of area patient or be seen as a day patient. Participants Analysis of routine data for 1108 out of area registered patients and 250 day patients; postal survey of out of area registered (315/886, 36%) and day (64/188, 34%) patients over 18 years of age, with a UK mailing address; comparison with General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS); semistructured interviews with 24 pilot patients. Results Pilot patients were younger and more likely to be working than non-pilot patients at the same practices and reported generally more or at least as positive experiences than patients registered at the same practices, practices in the same PCT and nationally, despite belonging to subgroups of the population who typically report poorer than average experiences. Out of area patients who joined a pilot practice did so: after moving house and not wanting to change practice (26.2%); for convenience (32.6%); as newcomers to an area who selected a practice although they lived outside its boundary (23.6%); because of dissatisfaction with their previous practice (13.9%). Day patients attended primarily on grounds of convenience (68.8%); 51.6% of the day patient visits were for acute infections, most commonly upper respiratory infections (20.4%). Sixty-six per cent of day patients received a prescription during their visit. Conclusions Though the 12-month pilot was too brief to identify all costs and benefits, the scheme provided a positive experience for participating patients and practices.