Back

Do More Appointments Lead to Shorter Waits and Better Patient Experience? A Retrospective Observational Study of NHS Primary Care

Joseph, R.; Gupta, H.; Keoghan, M.; Danielli, S.; Scott, A.

2026-07-31 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.07.29.26359221 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction Primary care productivity and performance are hard to measure because patient health is not measured systematically and consistently. In England, productivity is measured using output (appointment volume) and two value-based metrics: waiting times and patient satisfaction. Higher productivity should improve all these metrics: more appointments should shorten waits, and shorter waits should raise patient satisfaction. However, little evidence tests how output and value-based metrics are associated. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of NHS primary care in England, 2018 to 2024, using Appointments in General Practice and the GP Patient Survey. Across Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), we examined the relationship between changes in appointment volume, waiting times, and patient dissatisfaction over two periods, 2018-2022 and 2022-2023, stratified by staff group and appointment mode. Results Completed appointments rose between 2018 and 2024, with care shifting towards non-GP staff and virtual delivery. Across ICBs in 2018-2022, per million additional appointments, waiting time changed by -0.04 days (95% CI: -0.10, 0.03) and dissatisfaction by 0.02 percentage points (95% CI: -0.36, 0.40). Per additional day of waiting, dissatisfaction changed by -1.40 percentage points (95% CI: -3.21, 0.42). In 2022-2023, the corresponding estimates were -0.31 days (95% CI: -0.57, -0.04), -0.75 percentage points (95% CI: -3.05, 1.56), and 2.85 percentage points (95% CI: 1.20, 4.51). Conclusion Increased appointment volume was not associated with shorter waiting times or lower patient dissatisfaction, and shorter waiting times were not associated with lower patient dissatisfaction. Either quality metrics do not respond to output, the key factor providers control, or they do not capture the dimensions of quality that matter. Performance frameworks that assess primary care productivity through these metrics should be reviewed.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.