包容性健康群体获得全科医生服务的机会:观点和建议。

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-29 Print Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0021
Aaminah Verity, Victoria Tzortziou Brown
{"title":"包容性健康群体获得全科医生服务的机会:观点和建议。","authors":"Aaminah Verity, Victoria Tzortziou Brown","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practice has seen the widespread adoption of remote consulting and triage systems. There is a lack of evidence exploring how inclusion health populations have been impacted by this transformation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to explore the post-pandemic GP access for inclusion health populations, through the lens of those with lived experience, and identify practical recommendations for improving access for this population.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A mixed-methods study exploring the direct experience of people from inclusion health groups trying to access GP care in 13 practices in east London.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A mystery shopper exercise involving 39 in-person practice visits and 13 phone calls were undertaken. The findings were reflected on by a multidisciplinary stakeholder group, which identified recommendations for improvements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 31% of the mystery shopper visits (<i>n</i> = 8) resulted in registration and the offer of an appointment to see a GP for an urgent problem. None of the mystery shoppers was able to book an appointment over the phone but <i>n</i> = 10/13 felt that they would be able to register and make an appointment if they followed the receptionist's instructions. Most mystery shoppers felt respected, listened to, and understood the information provided to them. Just under half of the practices (46%, <i>n</i> = 6) received positive comments on how accessible and supportive their spaces felt. Practice- and system-level recommendations were identified by the stakeholder group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ongoing GP access issues persist for inclusion health populations. We identified practice- and system-level recommendations for improving access for this vulnerable population.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523521/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GP access for inclusion health groups: perspectives and recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Aaminah Verity, Victoria Tzortziou Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practice has seen the widespread adoption of remote consulting and triage systems. There is a lack of evidence exploring how inclusion health populations have been impacted by this transformation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to explore the post-pandemic GP access for inclusion health populations, through the lens of those with lived experience, and identify practical recommendations for improving access for this population.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A mixed-methods study exploring the direct experience of people from inclusion health groups trying to access GP care in 13 practices in east London.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A mystery shopper exercise involving 39 in-person practice visits and 13 phone calls were undertaken. The findings were reflected on by a multidisciplinary stakeholder group, which identified recommendations for improvements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 31% of the mystery shopper visits (<i>n</i> = 8) resulted in registration and the offer of an appointment to see a GP for an urgent problem. None of the mystery shoppers was able to book an appointment over the phone but <i>n</i> = 10/13 felt that they would be able to register and make an appointment if they followed the receptionist's instructions. Most mystery shoppers felt respected, listened to, and understood the information provided to them. Just under half of the practices (46%, <i>n</i> = 6) received positive comments on how accessible and supportive their spaces felt. Practice- and system-level recommendations were identified by the stakeholder group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ongoing GP access issues persist for inclusion health populations. We identified practice- and system-level recommendations for improving access for this vulnerable population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJGP Open\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523521/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJGP Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全科医生广泛采用远程咨询和分诊系统。目的:本研究旨在通过具有生活经验的人的视角,探讨大流行后包容性健康人群获得全科医生服务的情况,并为改善该人群获得全科医生服务的情况提出切实可行的建议:这是一项混合方法研究,探讨融入健康人群在伦敦东部 13 家诊所就医时的直接体验:方法:开展了一项神秘顾客活动,包括 39 次上门诊所访问和 13 次电话访问。多学科利益相关者小组对调查结果进行了反思,并提出了改进建议:结果:只有 31% 的神秘顾客访问(n=8)进行了登记,并为紧急问题预约了全科医生。没有一位神秘顾客能够通过电话预约,但有 10/13 位神秘顾客认为,如果他们按照接待员的指示进行操作,就能够进行登记和预约。大多数 "神秘顾客 "都感到自己受到了尊重,他们的意见得到了倾听,并理解了向他们提供的信息。只有不到一半的诊所(46%,n=6)获得了积极的评价,认为他们的诊疗空间是无障碍和支持性的:结论:对于包容性健康人群来说,全科医生的使用问题一直存在。我们提出了诊所和系统层面的建议,以改善这一弱势群体的就医环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
GP access for inclusion health groups: perspectives and recommendations.

Background: General practice has seen the widespread adoption of remote consulting and triage systems. There is a lack of evidence exploring how inclusion health populations have been impacted by this transformation.

Aim: This study aimed to explore the post-pandemic GP access for inclusion health populations, through the lens of those with lived experience, and identify practical recommendations for improving access for this population.

Design & setting: A mixed-methods study exploring the direct experience of people from inclusion health groups trying to access GP care in 13 practices in east London.

Method: A mystery shopper exercise involving 39 in-person practice visits and 13 phone calls were undertaken. The findings were reflected on by a multidisciplinary stakeholder group, which identified recommendations for improvements.

Results: Only 31% of the mystery shopper visits (n = 8) resulted in registration and the offer of an appointment to see a GP for an urgent problem. None of the mystery shoppers was able to book an appointment over the phone but n = 10/13 felt that they would be able to register and make an appointment if they followed the receptionist's instructions. Most mystery shoppers felt respected, listened to, and understood the information provided to them. Just under half of the practices (46%, n = 6) received positive comments on how accessible and supportive their spaces felt. Practice- and system-level recommendations were identified by the stakeholder group.

Conclusion: Ongoing GP access issues persist for inclusion health populations. We identified practice- and system-level recommendations for improving access for this vulnerable population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信