A collaborative approach to improving patient access in general practice: impact of three different pilot schemes in 12 general practices in Greenwich.

London journal of primary care Pub Date : 2016-06-10 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1080/17571472.2016.1173946
Melanie Lawless, Ellen Wright, Jackie Davidson
{"title":"A collaborative approach to improving patient access in general practice: impact of three different pilot schemes in 12 general practices in Greenwich.","authors":"Melanie Lawless,&nbsp;Ellen Wright,&nbsp;Jackie Davidson","doi":"10.1080/17571472.2016.1173946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With rising patient demand and expectations, many practices are struggling to respond to the demand for appointments.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate different approaches to improving access to general practice and assess the impact on (i) patient experience, (ii) practice staff experience and (iii) activity in A&E and walk-in centres.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Greenwich CCG piloted three approaches in 12 volunteer practices. The schemes were:(1) Systematic GP telephone triage of all appointment requests.(2) Analysis and comparison of practice data including demand and capacity to identify opportunities for improvement.(3) Online consultations. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall results were inconclusive and no one pilot scheme was overwhelmingly successful in improving patient experience of access or reducing practice workload. Scheme 1 telephone triage: In some cases, overall demand on clinician time through the day reduced as face-to-face consultations were replaced with shorter telephone consultations. However, in other practices, total consulting time went up when telephone consultations took longer than the suggested average 5 min. Scheme 2 practice analysis and benchmarking: The pilot practices implemented no significant changes. Scheme 3 online consultations: Take up was low, with users as a percentage of total list size dropping significantly to even lower levels in the second half of the pilot - from 3.13% in the first three months to 1.20% in the second three months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As the pilots did not improve the overall patient experience of access or practice workload, the pilot schemes were not rolled out by the CCG. From the CCG's point of view, it was valuable to test out the effect of a scheme before committing further resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":89823,"journal":{"name":"London journal of primary care","volume":"8 4","pages":"56-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17571472.2016.1173946","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London journal of primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17571472.2016.1173946","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: With rising patient demand and expectations, many practices are struggling to respond to the demand for appointments.

Objective: To investigate different approaches to improving access to general practice and assess the impact on (i) patient experience, (ii) practice staff experience and (iii) activity in A&E and walk-in centres.

Method: Greenwich CCG piloted three approaches in 12 volunteer practices. The schemes were:(1) Systematic GP telephone triage of all appointment requests.(2) Analysis and comparison of practice data including demand and capacity to identify opportunities for improvement.(3) Online consultations. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation was undertaken.

Results: Overall results were inconclusive and no one pilot scheme was overwhelmingly successful in improving patient experience of access or reducing practice workload. Scheme 1 telephone triage: In some cases, overall demand on clinician time through the day reduced as face-to-face consultations were replaced with shorter telephone consultations. However, in other practices, total consulting time went up when telephone consultations took longer than the suggested average 5 min. Scheme 2 practice analysis and benchmarking: The pilot practices implemented no significant changes. Scheme 3 online consultations: Take up was low, with users as a percentage of total list size dropping significantly to even lower levels in the second half of the pilot - from 3.13% in the first three months to 1.20% in the second three months.

Conclusion: As the pilots did not improve the overall patient experience of access or practice workload, the pilot schemes were not rolled out by the CCG. From the CCG's point of view, it was valuable to test out the effect of a scheme before committing further resources.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

提高全科病人可及性的合作方法:格林尼治12家全科医院三种不同试点方案的影响。
背景:随着患者需求和期望的增加,许多实践正在努力应对预约需求。目的:研究改善全科医疗服务的不同途径,并评估对(i)患者体验、(ii)执业人员体验和(iii)急诊科和无预约中心活动的影响。方法:Greenwich CCG在12个志愿者实践中试行了三种方法。这些方案包括:(1)对所有预约请求进行系统的全科医生电话分诊(2)分析和比较实践数据,包括需求和能力,以确定改进的机会(3)在线咨询。进行了定性和定量评价。结果:总体结果不确定,没有一个试点方案在改善患者体验或减少实践工作量方面取得压倒性成功。计划一电话诊症分类:在某些个案中,由于以较短时间的电话诊症取代面对面诊症,减少了对临床医生整天的整体需求。然而,在其他实践中,当电话咨询花费的时间超过建议的平均5分钟时,总咨询时间就会增加。方案2实践分析和基准:试点实践没有实施重大变化。计划三网上谘询:使用率低,在试验计划的后半期,用户占总名单规模的百分比大幅下降至更低的水平,由首三个月的3.13%降至后三个月的1.20%。结论:由于试点没有改善患者的总体就诊体验或实践工作量,CCG没有推出试点计划。从中央政府的角度来看,在投入更多资源之前,测试计划的效果是很有价值的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书