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.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England 92%
- Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net 92%
- The Monash Learning Health System Maturity Matrix: Codesign of a Tool to Measure and Guide Improvement in Complex Health System Behaviour 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Primary care transformation in Scotland: a comparison two cross-sectional national surveys of general practitioners’ views in 2018 and 2023 94%
- Implementation of predictive risk stratification to reduce emergency admissions to hospital: experiences of general practitioners and practice managers 93%
- OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 1: describing trends and variation in primary care clinical activity for 23.3 million patients in England during the first wave of COVID-19 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance, a practice-level survey to assess primary care structures and processes 93%
- Feasibility trial of a new digital training package to enhance primary care practitioners' communication of clinical empathy and realistic optimism 93%
- Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- How and why do Quality Circles work for General Practitioners - a realist approach 93%
- What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study 92%
- Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 90%
- Evaluating the impact of an enhanced support implementation of the PReCePT (PRevention of Cerebral palsy in Pre-Term labour) quality improvement toolkit to increase the uptake of magnesium sulphate in pre-term deliveries for the prevention of neurodisabilities: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial 90%
- How, Why And Under What Circumstances Does A Quality Improvement Collaborative Build Knowledge And Skills In Clinicians Working With People With Dementia? A Realist Informed Process Evaluation 90%
"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.