Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Changes in Patient Experiences of Primary Care During Health Service Reforms in England Between 2003 and 2007

Stephen M. Campbell, Evangelos Kontopantelis, David Reeves, Jose M. Valderas, Ella Gaehl, Nicola Small and Martin O. Roland
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2010, 8 (6) 499-506; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1145
Stephen M. Campbell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evangelos Kontopantelis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Reeves
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose M. Valderas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ella Gaehl
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicola Small
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin O. Roland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Characteristics and Representativeness of Practice Sample (n = 42) Compared With All General Practices in England

    CharacteristicNaMeanSD10th PercentileMedian90th Percentile
    GMS = General Medical Services; IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation; NHS = National Health Service; QOF = Quality and Outcomes Framework: SOA = Super Output Area.
    a Practice list sizes from GMS data (Reused with the permission of The Health and Social Care Information Centre).
    b QOF achievement obtained from the NHS Information Centre (http://www.qof.ic.nhs.uk/).
    c Data correspond to all practices in England.
    d IMD data available from the Communities and Neighbourhoods Web site (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/communities.gov.uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/.
    Overall QOFb achievement 2007
        Englandc8,37289.85.084.790.894.1
        Study sample4289.63.586.190.093.1
    Practice list size 2007
        Englandc8,5826,4223,9652,2385,59011,784
        Study sample426,6203,8462,3706,11811,342
    Overall QOF achievement 2005
        Englandc8,50079.88.768.781.788.4
        Study sample4280.67.071.182.288.6
    Practice list size 2005
        Englandc8,4586,2373,8662,1805,40911,553
        Study sample416,6173,8372,4565,92111,481
    Practice list size 2003
        Englandc7,8425,9833,7762,0765,17011,185
        Study sample396,3673,7672,1635,86211,270
    Deprivation: SOA IMDd (2005)
        Englandc8,58226.017.17.421.651.3
        Study sample4227.320.67.320.162.7
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Response Rates for Patient Surveys

    Patient Group2003 % (n)2005 % (n)2007 % (n)
    Chronic illness samples55 (1,092)52 (1,040)50 (922)
    Random samples of registered patients47 (3,873)45 (3,601)37 (3,104)
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Summary of Practice Mean GPAQ Scale and Individual Item Scores 2003, 2005, and 2007, for Cross-Sectional Samples of Patients With Chronic Illness and Random Samples of Adult Patients

    Samples of Patients With Chronic Illness Mean (SD)aSamples of Randomly Selected Patients Mean (SD)a
    GPAQ Scale and Item200320052007200320052007
    GPAQ = General Practice Assessment Questionnaire.
    Note: See the Appendix for a description of how the scales were scored.
    a Figures relate to raw practice-level scores (mean and standard deviation of practice means).
    Communication scale74.5 (10.1)74.5 (9.3)76.0 (8.5)69.5 (10.0)68.4 (9.4)69.9 (8.9)
    Coordination scale72.1 (7.4)71.0 (5.8)73.0 (5.9)67.0 (5.8)68.6 (5.1)68.3 (6.1)
    Nursing care scale76.0 (6.1)76.1 (6.0)75.3 (8.1)73.9 (6.2)73.4 (5.3)72.9 (7.1)
    Overall satisfaction scale81.6 (8.0)80.6 (8.6)81.3 (7.7)75.2 (9.2)74.7 (10.6)75.6 (7.9)
    Item: In general, how often do you see your usual doctor (continuity of care)?77.2 (8.0)74.9 (9.4)70.4 (9.6)68.2 (13.1)62.8 (13.5)62.5 (11.6)
    Item: Rating of how often patients get to see their usual doctor (rating of continuity of care)71.5 (9.8)69.1 (9.9)67.4 (11.5)64.6 (13.1)61.0 (12.2)61.2 (10.4)
    Item: Do you get an appointment with a particular doctor within 48 hours?36.9 (29.5)38.7 (26.3)37.0 (22.6)33.4 (26.2)35.9 (25.1)32.3 (21.0)
    Item: Rating of how quickly an appointment can be made with a particular doctor in the practice57.3 (17.7)58.0 (14.1)56.6 (15.6)50.0 (18.6)52.2 (16.0)53.0 (13.6)
    Item: Do you get an appointment with any doctor within 48 hours?64.5 (23.9)68.0 (22.6)67.2 (19.9)61.5 (24.2)63.4 (21.0)63.8 (22.4)
    Item: Rating of how quickly an appointment can be made with any doctor in the practice65.2 (15.2)64.5 (13.8)65.5 (14.5)59.2 (17.2)61.2 (14.2)62.4 (13.1)
    Item: If you need an urgent appointment can you get one on the same day?81.8 (17.7)81.2 (15.5)82.2 (16.8)79.6 (17.1)78.2 (17.5)79.4 (18.8)
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Results From Regression Analyses of Patients With Chronic Illness and Random Samples in 2003 and 2007

    Mean Change 2003–2007 Chronic Illness SampleMean Change 2003–2007 Random SampleDifference Between Samples Mean Score 2003Difference Between Samples Mean Change 2003–2007
    GPAQ Scale/ItemCoeff (95% CI)Coeff (95% CI)Coeff (95% CI)Coeff (95% CI)
    Coeff=coefficient.
    Note: Results based on postestimation tests of regression coefficients controlling for patient sex, age, ethnicity, accommodation, and employment status. No differences in statistical significance were observed using bootstrap methods.
    Linear regressions
    Communication scale−0.2 (−1.9 to 1)0.4 (−1.3 to 2.1)−2.6 (−4.0 to −1.1)−0.6 (−2.8 to 1.5)
    Coordination scale0.8 (−1.2 to 2.8)−0.1 (−2.2 to 2.0)−2.6 (−4.7 to −0.6)0.9 (−2.0 to 3.8)
    Nursing care scale−0.9 (−2.4 to 0.6)−0.3 (−2.0 to 1.5)−1.1 (−2.7 to 0.5)−0.6 (−2.9 to 1.6)
    Overall satisfaction scale−0.4 (−1.5 to 0.7)0.1 (−1.5 to 1.7)−2.7 (−4.1 to −1.4)−0.5 (−2.4 to 1.4)
    Item: In general, how often do you see your usual doctor (continuity of care)?−6.9 (−8.4 to −4.4)−6.7 (−8.8 to −4.6)−3.5 (−5.3 to −1.7)−0.2 (−2.8 to 2.4)
    Item: Rating of how often patients get to see their usual doctor (rating of continuity of care)−4.8 (−6.2 to −3.4)−4.2 (−6.1 to −2.2)−2.9 (−4.6 to −1.3)−0.6 (−3.0 to 1.8)
    Item: Rating of how quickly an appointment can be made with a particular doctor in the practice2.6 (0.9 to 4.2)−0.8 (−3.2 to 1.6)−3.8 (−5.8 to −1.8)3.4 (0.5 to 6.2)
    Item: Rating of how quickly an appointment can be made with any doctor in the practice3.2 (1.5 to 4.9)0.7 (−1.8 to 3.2)−4.6 (−6.7 to −2.5)2.5 (−0.5 to 5.5)
    Logistic regressionsOR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
    Item: Do you get an appointment with a particular doctor within 48 hours?0.98 (0.84 to 1.15)0.97 (0.78 to 1.21)0.90 (0.74 to 1.09)1.01 (0.77 to 1.33)
    Item: Do you get an appointment with any doctor within 48 hours?1.24 (1.06 to 1.45)1.19 (0.94 to 1.50)0.90 (0.74 to 1.09)1.04 (0.79 to 1.38)
    Item: If you need an urgent appointment can you get one on the same day?1.02 (0.83 to 1.27)1.02 (0.76 to 1.38)0.94 (0.73 to 1.22)1.00 (0.69 to 1.44)
    • View popup
    Appendix.

    Scales and Individual Items for Access and Continuity of Care, of the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire, Used in 2003, 2005, 2007

    Coordination-of-care scale: consisting of 6 items on a 6-point scale from “very poor” to “excellent,” relating to referral within a practice and referral outside a practice separately.
    Communication skills of usual-doctor scale: consisting of 7 items each of which is rated on a 6-point scale ranging from “very poor” to “excellent.”
    Nursing scale: consisting of 3 items using a 6-point scale from “very poor” to “excellent,” relating to patient assessments of the attention nurses give to what patients say, the quality of care provided, and the explanations given about problems/treatments.
    Overall satisfaction scale: consisting of a single 7-point item from “completely satisfied” to “completely dissatisfied.”
    Individual Items Relating to Access and Continuity of Care
    “In general how often do you see your usual doctor?” (6-point scale from ”always” to “never”)
    “How do you rate this [how often you can see your usual doctor]?” (6-point scale, from “very poor” to “excellent”)
    “Thinking of times when you want to see a particular doctor”:
        “How quickly do you get an appointment? ” (6-point scale from “same day” to “more than 5 days”; recoded for analysis as “within 2 days” vs “more than 2 days”)
        “How do you rate this? ” (6-point scale from “very poor” to “excellent”)
    “Thinking of times when you are willing to see any doctor”:
        “How quickly do you get an appointment? ” (6-point scale from “same day” to “more than 5 days”; recoded for analysis as “within 2 days” vs “more than 2 days”)
        “How do you rate this?” (6-point scale from ‘“very poor” to “excellent”)
    “If you need an urgent appointment to see your GP can you normally get one on the same day? ” (“yes” or “no”)

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Changes in Patient Experiences of Primary Care During Health Service Reforms in England Between 2003 and 2007

    Stephen M. Campbell , and colleagues

    Background In the United Kingdom, major reforms in primary care policy and practice have been introduced in recent years, including financial incentives to improve clinical quality and provide more rapid access to care. This study set out to examine the impact of these changes on patients' experiences.

    What This Study Found Although there was a modest improvement in access to care for patients with chronic illness, the changes had negative effects on continuity. Patients reported seeing their usual physician less often and gave lower ratings for care continuity and satisfaction. There were no significant changes in quality of care reported by patients before and after the introduction of the government Quality and Outcomes Framework program for communication, nursing care, coordination, and overall satisfaction. For patients with chronic disease, some aspects of urgent access improved significantly (ability to book an urgent appointment and the satisfaction with this experience); however, patients without a long-term condition did not experience this improvement. Patients in both groups reported seeing their usual physician less often and gave lower satisfaction ratings for continuity of care in 2007 compared with 2003.

    Implications

    • Efforts to increase access to primary care need to be balanced against the fundamental primary care principle of continuity.
    • Current discussions of the patient-centered medical home in the United States should take into account that initiatives to enhance access to care may compromise continuity.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 8 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine
Vol. 8, Issue 6
1 Nov 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Annual Indexes
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Changes in Patient Experiences of Primary Care During Health Service Reforms in England Between 2003 and 2007
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Changes in Patient Experiences of Primary Care During Health Service Reforms in England Between 2003 and 2007
Stephen M. Campbell, Evangelos Kontopantelis, David Reeves, Jose M. Valderas, Ella Gaehl, Nicola Small, Martin O. Roland
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2010, 8 (6) 499-506; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1145

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Changes in Patient Experiences of Primary Care During Health Service Reforms in England Between 2003 and 2007
Stephen M. Campbell, Evangelos Kontopantelis, David Reeves, Jose M. Valderas, Ella Gaehl, Nicola Small, Martin O. Roland
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2010, 8 (6) 499-506; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1145
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment
  • Longitudinal evaluation of a countywide alternative to the Quality and Outcomes Framework in UK General Practice aimed at improving Person Centred Coordinated Care
  • Association between continuity of provider-adjusted regularity of general practitioner contact and unplanned diabetes-related hospitalisation: a data linkage study in New South Wales, Australia, using the 45 and Up Study cohort
  • Quality after the QOF? Before dismantling it, we need a redefined measure of 'quality
  • Why do patients seek primary medical care in emergency departments? An ethnographic exploration of access to general practice
  • Impact of UK Primary Care Policy Reforms on Short-Stay Unplanned Hospital Admissions for Children With Primary Care-Sensitive Conditions
  • Patient-doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice
  • Managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care
  • Patient-reported access to primary care in Ontario: Effect of organizational characteristics
  • Comparison of health confidence in rural, suburban and urban areas in the UK and the USA: a secondary analysis
  • Better management of patients with multimorbidity
  • Pay-for-Performance in the United Kingdom: Impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework--A Systematic Review
  • Do English patients want continuity of care, and do they receive it?
  • Factors associated with variability in the assessment of UK doctors' professionalism: analysis of survey results
  • Is patient-centred care a tautology?: View from the Netherlands
  • Tension Between Access and Continuity
  • In This Issue: Access, Vulnerability, and Science
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Medical Practice Variation Among Primary Care Physicians: 1 Decade, 14 Health Services, and 3,238,498 Patient-Years
  • Pregnancy Medicaid Improvements in a Nonexpansion State After the Affordable Care Act
  • Diagnostic Agreement Between Telemedicine on Social Networks and Teledermatology Centers
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Online First

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine