The future role of receptionists in primary care

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.

Dispensing antimicrobials to farmers in Wales: The roles and experiences of veterinary practice staff

BACKGROUND

Veterinary practice staff are directly involved in the dispensing of prescription veterinary medicines (POM-Vs) to farmers as prescribed by registered veterinary surgeons to animals 'under their care'. The role of veterinary practice staff has, to date, been underresearched. The objective of this study was to investigate the roles played by veterinary practice staff, exploring their expectations and perceptions of the front-of-house (FoH) role, their interactions with clients in day-to-day veterinary practice and their experiences relating to the dispensing of POM-Vs.

METHODS

Thematic analysis was used to analyse data from 20 semi-structured interviews of veterinary practice staff. Participants were recruited from 80% of the large animal or mixed species veterinary practices across Wales.

RESULTS

Four key themes-'piggy in the middle', learning on the job, practice organisation and facilitating change-were identified, illustrating the multifaceted and diverse nature of this type of employment.

LIMITATIONS

This study is not intended to be representative of the perceptions of FoH staff on the dispensing of antimicrobials. Larger-scale studies are required to substantiate these findings.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the roles of non-clinical veterinary staff allows practice managers and veterinary surgeons to better identify and meet training and staffing needs and improves recognition of this key area of practice work.

Beyond empathy training for practitioners: Cultivating empathic healthcare systems and leadership

Empathic care benefits patients and practitioners, and empathy training for practitioners can enhance empathy. However, practitioners do not operate in a vacuum. For empathy to thrive, healthcare consultations must be situated in a nurturing milieu, guided by empathic, compassionate leaders. Empathy will be suppressed, or even reversed if practitioners are burned out and working in an unpleasant, under-resourced environment with increasingly poorly served and dissatisfied patients. Efforts to enhance empathy must therefore go beyond training practitioners to address system-level factors that foster empathy. These include patient education, cultivating empathic leadership, customer service training for reception staff, valuing cleaning and all ancillary staff, creating healing spaces, and using appropriate, efficiency saving technology to reduce the administrative burden on healthcare practitioners. We divide these elements into environmental factors, organisational factors, job factors, and individual characteristics.

How new clinical roles in primary care impact on equitable distribution of workforce: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

There are inequalities in the geographical distribution of the primary care workforce in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), and the associated Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) funding, have stimulated employment of new healthcare roles. However, it is not clear whether this will impact inequalities.

AIM

To examine whether the ARRS impacted inequality in the distribution of the primary care workforce.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective before-and-after study of English PCNs in 2019 and 2022.

METHOD

The study combined workforce, population, and deprivation data at network level for March 2019 and March 2022. The change was estimated between 2019 and 2022 in the slope index of inequality (SII) across deprivation of full-time equivalent (FTE) GPs (total doctors, qualified GPs, and doctors-in-training), nurses, direct patient care, administrative, ARRS and non- ARRS, and total staff per 10 000 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1255 networks were included. Nurses and qualified GPs decreased in number while all other staff roles increased, with ARRS staff having the greatest increase. There was a pro- rich change in the SII for administrative staff (-0.482, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.841 to -0.122, P<0.01) and a pro- poor change for doctors-in-training (0.161, 95% CI = 0.049 to 0.274, P<0.01). Changes in distribution of all other staff types were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Between 2019 and 2022 the distribution of administrative staff became less pro-poor, and doctors-in-training became pro-poor. The changes in inequality in all other staff groups were mixed. The introduction of PCNs has not substantially changed the longstanding inequalities in the geographical distribution of the primary care workforce.

Patient aggression towards receptionists in general practice: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

General practice receptionists provide an essential function in the healthcare system but routinely encounter acts of incivility and aggression from patients, including hostility, abuse and violence. This study was conducted to summarise what is known about patient-initiated aggression towards general practice receptionists, including impacts on reception staff and existing mitigation strategies.

DESIGN

Systematic review with convergent integrated synthesis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies published at any time in English that examine patient aggression experiences of reception staff in primary care settings.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Searches of five major databases were performed (CINAHL Complete, Scopus, PubMed, Healthcare Administration Database and Google Scholar) to August 2022.

RESULTS

Twenty studies of various designs were included, ranging from the late 1970s to 2022 and originating from five OECD countries. Twelve were assessed as high quality using a validated checklist. Reviewed articles represented 4107 participants; 21.5% were general practice receptionists. All studies reported that displays of aggression towards receptionists by patients were a frequent and routine occurrence in general practice, particularly verbal abuse such as shouting, cursing, accusations of malicious behaviour and use of racist, ablest and sexist insults. Although infrequent, physical violence was widely reported. Inefficient appointment scheduling systems, delayed access to doctors and prescription denial appeared common precipitators. Receptionists adapted their behaviour and demeanour to placate and please patients to avoid escalation of patient frustrations at the cost of their own well-being and clinic productivity. Training in patient aggression management increased receptionist confidence and appeared to decrease negative sequalae. Coordinated support for general practice reception staff who had experienced patient aggression was generally lacking, with a small proportion receiving professional counselling.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient aggression towards reception staff is a serious workplace safety concern for general practices and negatively affects healthcare sector function more broadly. Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being for their own benefit and that of the community.

REGISTRATION

Pre-registered in Open Science Framework (osf.io/42p85).

Scale-up of a chronic care model-based programme for type 2 diabetes in Belgium: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is an increasingly dominant disease. Interventions are more effective when carried out by a prepared and proactive team within an organised system - the integrated care (IC) model. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides guidance for its implementation, but scale-up of IC is challenging, and this hampers outcomes for T2D care. In this paper, we used the CCM to investigate the current implementation of IC in primary care in Flanders (Belgium) and its variability in different practice types.

METHODS

Belgium contains three different primary-care practice types: monodisciplinary fee-for-service practices, multidisciplinary fee-for-service practices and multidisciplinary capitation-based practices. Disproportional sampling was used to select a maximum of 10 practices for each type in three Flemish regions, leading to a total of 66 practices. The study employed a mixed methods design whereby the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) was complemented with interviews with general practitioners, nurses and dieticians linked to the 66 practices.

RESULTS

The ACIC scores of the fee-for-service practices - containing 97% of Belgian patients - only corresponded to basic support for chronic illness care for T2D. Multidisciplinary and capitation-based practices scored considerably higher than traditional monodisciplinary fee-for-service practices. The region had no significant impact on the ACIC scores. Having a nurse, being a capitation practice and having a secretary had a significant effect in the regression analysis, which explained 75% of the variance in ACIC scores. Better-performing practices were successful due to clear role-defining, task delegation to the nurse, coordination, structured use of the electronic medical record, planning of consultations and integration of self-management support, and behaviour-change intervention (internally or using community initiatives). The longer nurses work in primary care practices, the higher the chance that they perform more advanced tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides the presence of a nurse or secretary, also working multidisciplinary under one roof and a capitation-based financing system are important features of a system wherein IC for T2D can be scaled-up successfully. Belgian policymakers should rethink the role of paramedics in primary care and make the financing system more integrated. As the scale-up of the IC varied highly in different contexts, uniform roll-out across a health system containing multiple types of practices may not be successful.

What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.

What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes' (PWD) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a diabetes only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff

PURPOSE

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program.

METHODS

We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates.

RESULTS

We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

The Unrecognized Role of VA Call Center and Primary Care Clerical Staff in Assisting Patients with Obtaining Needed Care

BACKGROUND

VA clerks, or medical support assistants (MSAs), are a critical part of patients' primary care (PC) experiences and are often the first points of contact between Veterans and the healthcare system. Despite the important role they might play in assisting Veterans with accessing care, research is lacking on the specific tasks they perform and what training and preparation they receive to perform their roles.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary aim in this study was to document MSA perceptions of their roles, the tasks they undertake helping Veterans with accessing healthcare, and additional training they may need to optimally perform their role.

DESIGN

Thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews with VA call center and PC MSAs (n=29) collected as part of in-person site visits from August to October 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

MSAs at administrative call centers and primary care clinics in one large VA regional network representing 8 healthcare systems serving nearly 1.5 million Veterans.

KEY RESULTS

We identified three key findings from the interviews: (1) MSAs perform tasks in addition to scheduling that help Veterans obtain needed care; (2) MSAs may not be fully prepared for their roles as first points of contact; and (3) low status and lack of recognition of the important and complex tasks performed by MSAs contribute to high turnover.

CONCLUSIONS

As healthcare systems continue expanding virtual access, the roles of administrative call center and PC MSAs as first points of contact will be increasingly important for shaping patient experiences. Our research suggests that MSAs may need better training and preparation for the roles they perform assisting Veterans with accessing care, coupled with an intentional approach by healthcare systems to address MSAs' concerns about recognition/compensation. Future research should explore the potential for enhanced MSA customer service training to improve the Veteran patient experience.

From policy to patient: Using a socio-ecological framework to explore the factors influencing safe practice in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

The recent and rapid changes in the model of primary care delivery have led to an increased focus on patient safety in what is one of the most diverse and complex healthcare settings. However, previous initiatives have failed to deliver the expected improvements, leading to calls for a better understanding of how a range of personal and contextual factors influence the decisions and behaviours of individual care providers.

METHODS

The socio-ecological framework, successfully used in public health settings to interpret the complex influences on individual behaviours, enabled a post-hoc deductive analysis of a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with clinical staff and senior managers at a range of practices across five geographically diverse regions in England to explore their perspectives on the factors that influence safe practice.

RESULTS

The five levels of the socio-ecological framework successfully helped unpick the myriad influences on safe primary care practice, including, at the Individual level, assumptions of responsibility and previous experience; at the Interpersonal, equitable communication in support of a team ethos; at the Organisational, the physical infrastructure, size and complexity of the practice; at the Community, the health profile and literacy of patients; and at the Policy, meeting the demands of competing local and national governing bodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Coherent, realistic and achievable goals are needed for improving patient safety in primary care addressing personal, organisational and environmental factors. Such goals and the tools and interventions designed to meet them must therefore be sympathetic to the demands on resources and the characteristics of patients, staff, and their organisations. Using the framework to interpret our findings provided much needed insight into the impact of these varying influences, and highlights the importance of recognising and communicating the relationship between specific contextual factors and the ability of individual providers to provide safe primary care.

Patient views on understanding laboratory results

This paper examines the implications for laboratory staff of the technological changes enabling patients to have easy and quick access to their laboratory test results often without speaking with a health care professional. The needs of patients to receive results in easily understandable forms are described. The importance of sharing the concept of uncertainty with patients is discussed and explored including the challenges that this can create for staff.

General practice in UK newspapers: an empirical analysis of over 400 articles

BACKGROUND

In the context of the biggest GP workforce crisis since the NHS began, the alleged negative portrayal of UK general practice in the media is often cited as a reason for falling recruitment.

AIM

To explore how general practice and GPs are depicted in UK national newspapers.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A thematic analysis of all newspaper articles mentioning GPs or general practice published in the UK from late October 2016 to early October 2017 was undertaken, along with a sample of articles on hospital medicine.

METHOD

Articles were identified through the Lexin UK search engine; relevant titles were tabulated and data extracted. A preliminary coding scheme was developed through discussion and used to categorise data; additional codes and categories were added iteratively as the analysis progressed.

RESULTS

In total, 403 articles on general practice or GPs were identified, and 100 on hospital specialists or specialties were sampled. Articles depicted UK general practice as a service in crisis, with low morale and high burnout, and leaving gaps in patient care. The traditional family doctor service was depicted as rapidly eroding through privatisation and fragmentation, with GPs portrayed as responsible for the crisis and the resulting negative impact on quality of care. Hospital specialties were also illustrated as under pressure, but this crisis was depicted as being the fault of the government. GP leaders interviewed in the press were usually defending their specialty; hospital doctors were usually sharing their expertise.

CONCLUSION

Newspaper portrayals of general practice are currently very negative. Efforts to influence the media to provide a more balanced perspective of general practice should continue.

Receptionists' role in new approaches to consultations in primary care: a focused ethnographic study

Background

The receptionist is pivotal to the smooth running of general practice in the UK, communicating with patients and booking appointments.

Aim

The authors aimed to explore the role of the receptionist in the implementation of new approaches to consultations in primary care.

Design and setting

The authors conducted a team-based focused ethnography. Three researchers observed eight general practices across England and Scotland between June 2015 and May 2016.

Method

Interviews were conducted with 39 patients and 45 staff in the practices, all of which had adopted one or more methods (telephone, email, e-consultation, or internet video) for providing an alternative to face-to-face consultation.

Results

Receptionists have a key role in facilitating patient awareness regarding new approaches to consultations in primary care, while at the same time ensuring that patients receive a consultation appropriate to their needs. In this study, receptionists’ involvement in implementation and planning for the introduction of alternative approaches to face-to-face consultations was minimal, despite the expectation that they would be involved in delivery.

Conclusion

A shared understanding within practices of the potential difficulties and extra work that might ensue for reception staff was lacking. This might contribute to the low uptake by patients of potentially important innovations in service delivery. Involvement of the wider practice team in planning and piloting changes, supporting team members through service reconfiguration, and providing an opportunity to discuss and contribute to modifications of any new system would ensure that reception staff are suitably prepared to support the introduction of a new approach to consultations.