Processes supporting effective skill-mix implementation in general practice: A qualitative study

The changing shape of English general practice: a retrospective longitudinal study using national datasets describing trends in organisational structure, workforce and recorded appointments

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in the organisational structure, workforce and recorded appointments by role in English general practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal study.

SETTING

English general practice.

DATA SOURCES AND PARTICIPANTS

NHS England, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and Care Quality Commission national administrative datasets covering between 5 to 10 years from 2013 to 2023.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2023, the number of general practices fell by 20% from 8044 to 6419; the average practice list size increase by 40% from 6967 to 9724 patients. The total population covered by providers with over 100 000 registered patients reached 2.3 million in 2023 compared to 0.5 million in 2017. The proportion of practices under individual ownership decreased from 13% to 11% between 2018 and 2023; there was little change in the proportion owned by partnerships, incorporated companies or NHS bodies, which respectively averaged around 80.3%, 6.9% and 0.7%. Between 2015 and 2022, there was a 20% rise in the total full-time equivalent (FTE) general practice workforce, including Primary Care Network staff, from 1.97 to 2.37 per 1000 patients because of an increase in multidisciplinary other 'Direct Patient Care' (DPC) and administrative roles. The number of nurses remained stable, and the number of qualified general practitioners (GPs) decreased by 15%. In September 2022, there were 0.45 FTE qualified GPs per 1000 patients; GPs and other DPC roles, excluding nurses, each represented 19% of the FTE per 1000 patients workforce; administrative roles represented 51%. The general practice workforce is predominantly female. A quarter of GPs qualified overseas. Between 2018 and 2023, there was no clear upward or downward trend in total appointments per 1000 patients with, on average, half provided by GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 2013, there has been a shift in general practice towards larger practices with more multidisciplinary teams, alongside a reduction in the number of FTE qualified GPs per 1000 patients. We recommend that the impacts of these changes on access, quality and costs are closely monitored.

The hidden work of general practitioners: An ethnography

High quality primary care is a foundational element of effective health services. Internationally, primary care physicians (general practitioners (GPs), family doctors) are experiencing significant workload pressures. How non-patient-facing work contributes to these pressures and what constitutes this work is poorly understood and often unrecognised and undervalued by patients, policy makers, and even clinicians engaged in it. This paper examines non-patient-facing work ethnographically, informed by practice theory, the Listening Guide, and empirical ethics. Ethnographic observations (104 h), in-depth interviews (n = 16; 8 with GPs and 8 with other primary care staff) and reflexive workshops were conducted in two general practices in England. Our analysis shows that 'hidden work' was integral to direct patient care, involving diverse clinical practices such as: interpreting test results; crafting referrals; and accepting interruptions from clinical colleagues. We suggest the term 'hidden care work' more accurately reflects the care-ful nature of this work, which was laden with ambiguity and clinical uncertainty. Completing hidden care work outside of expected working hours was normalised, creating feelings of inefficiency, and exacerbating workload pressure. Pushing tasks forward into an imagined future (when conditions might allow its completion) commonly led to overspill into GPs' own time. GPs experienced tension between their desire to provide safe, continuous, 'caring' care and the desire to work a manageable day, in a context of increasing demand and burgeoning complexity.

'It's the stuff they can do better than us': case studies of general practice surgeries' experiences of optimising the skill-mix contribution of practice-based pharmacists in Wales

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacists are increasingly joining the general practice skill-mix. Research is still in relative infancy, but barriers and facilitators to their integration are emerging, as well as indications that pharmacists' skillset remain underutilised. This study explores first-hand experiences and perspectives among general practice teams of the processes that underpin the effective integration and sustained contribution of pharmacists in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This research employed a qualitative case study approach involving general practice teams in Wales. Data were collected from eight general practices where each practice represented one case study. Data were collected via online interviews (one-to-one or group) and written feedback. Data were pattern coded and analysed thematically through a constant comparative approach. Data interpretations were confirmed with participants and wider general practice teams.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight general practice teams across Wales (comprising combinations of practice and business managers, general practitioners (GPs) and general practice pharmacists) represented eight case studies. Cases were required to have had experience of working with a general practice pharmacist.

RESULTS

Data were yielded from five practice managers, two GPs, three general practice pharmacists and a business manager. A total of 3 hours and 2 min of interview data was recorded as well as 2038 words of written feedback. Three foundations to pharmacists' effective contribution to general practice were identified: defining the role (through identifying the right pharmacist, mapping skillset to demand and utilising the increasing need for specialist skills), appropriate infrastructure and workforce review, and an appropriate employment model.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists are becoming increasingly critical to the general practice skill-mix and utilisation of their specialist skillset is crucial. This paper identifies how to enable the effective integration and sustained contribution of pharmacists to general practice.

Primary care transformation in Scotland: qualitative evaluation of the views of national senior stakeholders and cluster quality leads

BACKGROUND

Primary care transformation in Scotland aims to improve population health, reduce health inequalities, and reduce GP workload. Two key strategies (formalised in April 2018 in the new Scottish GP contract [Scottish General Medical Services contract], although started in early 2016) are the expansion of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and GP cluster working.

AIM

To explore progress in the implementation of the GP contract in Scotland in terms of the MDT and cluster working.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study with key national primary care stakeholders (PCSs) (n = 6) and cluster quality leads (CQLs) in clusters serving urban high deprivation areas (n = 4), urban mixed areas (n = 4), and remote and rural areas (n = 4).

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There was general support for the initial aims of the new GP contract but all interviewees felt that progress on both MDT expansion and cluster working was slow, even before the pandemic. None of the CQLs (and few PCSs) felt that GP workload had reduced significantly, nor that the care of patients with complex needs had improved. Lack of time and poorly developed relationships were key barriers, as was a lack of relevant primary care data, and additional support (including guidance, administration, training, and protected time).

CONCLUSION

Key PCSs and CQLs in different areas of Scotland report limited progress in primary care transformation, only partly related to the pandemic. There is a need for better workforce planning and support if the new GP contract is to succeed in transforming primary care in Scotland.

Skill-mix change and outcomes in primary care: Longitudinal analysis of general practices in England 2015-2019

BACKGROUND

Increasing the employment of staff with new clinical roles in primary care has been proposed as a solution to the shortages of GPs and nurses. However, evidence of the impacts this has on practice outcomes is limited. We examine how outcomes changed following changes in skill-mix in general practices in England.

METHODS

We obtained annual data on staff in 6,296 English general practices between 2015 and 2019 and grouped professionals into four categories: GPs, Nurses, Health Professionals, and Healthcare Associate Professionals. We linked 10 indicators of quality of care covering the dimensions of accessibility, clinical effectiveness, user experiences and health system costs. We used both fixed-effect and first-differences regressions to model changes in staff composition and outcomes, adjusting for practice and population factors.

RESULTS

Employment increased over time for all four staff groups, with largest increases for Healthcare Professionals (from 0.04 FTE per practice in 2015 to 0.28 in 2019) and smallest for Nurses who experienced a 3.5 percent growth. Increases in numbers of GPs and Nurses were positively associated with changes in practice activity and outcomes. The introduction of new roles was negatively associated with patient satisfaction: a one FTE increase in Health Professionals was associated with decreases of 0.126 [-0.175, -0.078] and 0.116 [-0.161, -0.071] standard deviations in overall patient satisfaction and satisfaction with making an appointment. Pharmacists improved medicine prescribing outcomes. All staff categories were associated with higher health system costs. There was little evidence of direct complementarity or substitution between different staff groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of new roles to support GPs does not have straightforward effects on quality or patient satisfaction. Problems can arise from the complex adaptation required to adjust practice organisation and from the novelty of these roles to patients. These findings suggest caution over the implementation of policies encouraging more employment of different professionals in primary care.