What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patient consultation preferences for seeing or speaking to a general practitioner (GP) or nurse; to estimate associations between patient-reported experiences and the type of consultation patients actually received (phone or face-to-face, GP or nurse). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the 2013 to 2014 General Practice Patient Survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 870 085 patients from 8005 English general practices. OUTCOMES: Patient ratings of communication and 'trust and confidence' with the clinician they saw. RESULTS: 77.7% of patients reported wanting to see or speak to a GP, while 14.5% reported asking to see or speak to a nurse the last time they tried to make an appointment (weighted percentages). Being unable to see or speak to the practitioner type of the patients' choice was associated with lower ratings of trust and confidence and patient-rated communication. Smaller differences were found if patients wanted a face-to-face consultation and received a phone consultation instead. The greatest difference was for patients who asked to see a GP and instead spoke to a nurse for whom the adjusted mean difference in confidence and trust compared with those who wanted to see a nurse and did see a nurse was -15.8 points (95% CI -17.6 to -14.0) for confidence and trust in the practitioner and -10.5 points (95% CI -11.7 to -9.3) for net communication score, both on a 0-100 scale. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' evaluation of their care is worse if they do not receive the type of consultation they expect, especially if they prefer a doctor but are unable to see one. New models of care should consider the potential unintended consequences for patient experience of the widespread introduction of multidisciplinary teams in general practice.

Informal carers' health-related quality of life and patient experience in primary care: evidence from 195,364 carers in England responding to a national survey.

BACKGROUND: We aim to describe the health-related quality of life of informal carers and their experiences of primary care. METHODS: Responses from the 2011-12 English General Practice Patient Survey, including 195,364 informal carers, were analysed using mixed effect logistic regressions controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation to describe carer health-related quality of life (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression, measured using EQ-5D) and primary care experience (access, continuity and communication). RESULTS: Informal carers reported poorer health-related quality of life than non-carers of similar age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation. Increasing caring commitment was associated with worse EQ-5D scores, with carers of 50+ hours a week scoring 0.05 points lower than non-carers (95 % CI 0.05 to 0.04), equivalent to 18 fewer days of full health annually. Considering each domain of EQ-5D separately, carers of 50+ hours/week were more likely to report pain OR = 1.53 (1.50-1.57), p < 0.0001, and anxiety/depression OR = 1.69 (1.66-1.73), p < 0.0001, than non-carers. Younger carers scored lower on EQ-5D than non-carer peers but the converse was true among over-85s. In the most deprived areas carers reported the equivalent of 37 fewer days of full health annually than carers in the most affluent areas. On average, carers reported poorer patient experiences in all areas of primary care than non-carers (odds ratios 0.84-0.97), with this difference being most marked in the domain of access. CONCLUSIONS: Informal carers experience a double disadvantage of poorer health-related quality of life and poorer patient experience in primary care. We find no evidence for health benefits of caregiving. We recommend physicians identify and treat carer health problems, including pain and anxiety/depression, particularly among young, deprived and high time-commitment carers. Improving patient experience for carers, including access to primary care, should be a priority.

Impact of community based peer support in type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial of individual and/or group approaches.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps guide and support others, has been proposed as a way to improve diabetes management. We have tested whether different diabetes peer support strategies can improve metabolic and/or psychological outcomes. METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes (n = 1,299) were invited to participate as either 'peer' or 'peer support facilitator' (PSF) in a 2x2 factorial randomised cluster controlled trial across rural communities (130 clusters) in England. Peer support was delivered over 8-12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes educator. Primary end point was HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, diabetes distress, blood pressure, waist, total cholesterol and weight. Outcome assessors and investigators were masked to arm allocation. Main factors were 1:1 or group intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat adjusting for baseline. RESULTS: The 4 arms were well matched (Group n = 330, 1:1(individual) n = 325, combined n = 322, control n = 322); 1035 (79·7%) completed the mid-point postal questionnaire and 1064 (81·9%) had a final HbA1c. A limitation was that although 92.6% PSFs and peers were in telephone contact, only 61.4% of intervention participants attended a face to face session. Mean baseline HbA1c was 57 mmol/mol (7·4%), with no significant change across arms. Follow up systolic blood pressure was 2·3 mm Hg (0.6 to 4.0) lower among those allocated group peer-support and 3·0 mm Hg (1.1 to 5.0) lower if the group support was attended at least once. There was no impact on other outcomes by intention to treat or significant differences between arms in self-reported adherence or medication. CONCLUSIONS: Group diabetes peer support over 8-12 months was associated with a small improvement in blood pressure but no other significant outcomes. Long term benefits should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN6696362166963621.

Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using questionnaire data from 906,578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583,143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale. RESULTS: Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care.

How do people with diabetes describe their experiences in primary care? Evidence from 85,760 patients with self-reported diabetes from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Developing primary care is an important current health policy goal in the U.S. and England. Information on patients' experience can help to improve the care of people with diabetes. We describe the experiences of people with diabetes in primary care and examine how these experiences vary with increasing comorbidity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from 906,578 responders to the 2012 General Practice Patient Survey (England), including 85,760 with self-reported diabetes, we used logistic regressions controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to analyze patient experience using seven items covering three domains of primary care: access, continuity, and communication. RESULTS: People with diabetes were significantly more likely to report better experience on six out of seven primary care items than people without diabetes after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (adjusted differences 0.88-3.20%; odds ratios [ORs] 1.07-1.18; P < 0.001). Those with diabetes and additional comorbid long-term conditions were more likely to report worse experiences, particularly for access to primary care appointments (patients with diabetes alone compared with patients without diabetes: OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.17-1.28] and patients with diabetes plus three or more conditions compared with patients without diabetes: OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.83-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes in England report primary care experiences that are at least as good as those without diabetes for most domains of care. However, improvements in primary care are needed for diabetes patients with comorbid long-term conditions, including better access to appointments and improved communication.

Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To determine which aspects of primary care matter most to patients, we aim to identify those aspects of patient experience that show the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction and examine the extent to which these relationships vary by socio-demographic and health characteristics. DESIGN/SETTING: Data from the 2009/10 English General Practice Patient Survey including 2,169,718 respondents registered with 8362 primary care practices. MEASURES/ANALYSES: Linear mixed-effects regression models (fixed effects adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, self-reported health, self-reported mental health condition and random practice effect) predicting overall satisfaction from six items covering four domains of care: access, helpfulness of receptionists, doctor communication and nurse communication. Additional models using interactions tested whether associations between patient experience and satisfaction varied by socio-demographic group. RESULTS: Doctor communication showed the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction (standardized coefficient 0.48, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.48), followed by the helpfulness of reception staff (standardized coefficient 0.22, 95% CI = 0.22, 0.22). Among six measures of patient experience, obtaining appointments in advance showed the weakest relationship with overall satisfaction (standardized coefficient 0.06, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.06). Interactions showed statistically significant but small variation in the importance of drivers across different patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: For all patient groups, communication with the doctor is the most important driver of overall satisfaction with primary care in England, along with the helpfulness of receptionists. In contrast, and despite being a policy priority for government, measures of access, including the ability to obtain appointments, were poorly related to overall satisfaction.

Relationship between clinical quality and patient experience: analysis of data from the english quality and outcomes framework and the National GP Patient Survey.

PURPOSE: Clinical quality and patient experience are both widely used to evaluate the quality of health care, but the relationship between these 2 domains remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine this relationship using data from 2 established measures of quality in primary care in England. METHODS: Practice-level analyses (N = 7,759 practices in England) were conducted on measures of patient experience from the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS), and measures of clinical quality from the national pay-for-performance scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework). Spearman's rank correlation and multiple linear regression were used on practice-level estimates. RESULTS: Although all the correlations between clinical quality summary scores and patient survey scores are positive, and most are statistically significant, the strength of the associations was weak, with the highest correlation coefficient reaching 0.18, and more than one-half were 0.11 or less. Correlations with clinical quality were highest for patient-reported access scores (telephone access 0.16, availability of urgent appointments 0.15, ability to book ahead 0.18, ability to see preferred doctor 0.17) and overall satisfaction (0.15). CONCLUSION: Although there are associations between clinical quality and measures of patient experience, the 2 domains of care quality remain predominantly distinct. The strongest correlations are observed between practice clinical quality and practice access, with very low correlations between clinical quality and interpersonal aspects of care. The quality of clinical care and the quality of interpersonal care should be considered separately to give an overall assessment of medical care.

Experiences of care among Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD: Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey results.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have special health needs; little is known about their care experiences. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of 2009-2010 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data, using representative random samples of Medicare beneficiaries. Description of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD and investigation of differences in patient experiences by sociodemographic characteristics and coverage type. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 823,564 Medicare beneficiaries (3,794 with ESRD) as part of the Medicare CAHPS survey, administered by mail with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents. PREDICTOR: ESRD status, age, education, self-reported general and mental health status, race/ethnicity, sex, Medicare coverage type, state of residence, and other demographic measures. OUTCOMES: 6 composite measures of patient experience in 4 care domains (access to care, physician communication, customer service, and access to prescription drugs and drug information) and 4 ratings (overall care, personal physician, specialist physician, and prescription drug plan). RESULTS: Patients with ESRD reported better care experiences than non-ESRD beneficiaries for 7 of 10 measures (P < 0.05) after adjustment for patient characteristics, geography, and coverage type, although to only a small extent (adjusted mean difference, <3 points [scale, 0-100]). Black patients with ESRD and less educated patients were more likely than other patients with ESRD to report poor experiences. LIMITATIONS: Inability to distinguish patient experiences of care for different treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: On average, beneficiaries with ESRD report patient experiences that are at least as positive as non-ESRD beneficiaries. However, black and less educated patients with ESRD reported worse experiences than other ESRD patients. Stratified reporting of patient experience by race/ethnicity or education in patients with ESRD can be used to monitor this disparity. Physician choice and confidence and trust in physicians may be particularly important for patients with ESRD.

Exploring physical and psychological wellbeing among adults with Type 2 diabetes in New Zealand: identifying a need to improve the experiences of Pacific peoples.

AIMS: This study explores levels of physical and psychological wellbeing among adults with Type 2 diabetes, and aims to identify the clinical, demographic, and psychological factors that are associated with differences in wellbeing. METHODS: Research participants (N=615) were randomly selected from a database of primary care records for people with diabetes (N=4857) in New Zealand. Self-report data were collected through a mailed questionnaire and clinical data from electronic records were obtained with participants' permission. RESULT: Mean HbA1c was 7.5% (SD=1.5) although this varied significantly across ethnic groups (p=.001) with metabolic control highest among New Zealand Europeans and lowest among Pacific peoples. Results showed that Pacific groups also experienced the highest levels of distress about diabetes, and concern about prescribed medication. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with Type 2 diabetes who are young, overweight, have concerns about prescribed medications, and those of Pacific ethnicity, are most likely to experience adverse health outcomes including poor metabolic control and diabetes-related distress. Among Pacific peoples in particular there is a need to address concerns about medication and emotional distress about diabetes, while maintaining a focus on improving metabolic control.

Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether receiving a negative test result at primary care based stepwise diabetes screening results in false reassurance. DESIGN: Parallel group cohort study embedded in a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 15 practices (10 screening, 5 control) in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial. PARTICIPANTS: 5334 adults (aged 40-69) in the top quarter for risk of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (964 controls and 4370 screening attenders). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived personal and comparative risk of diabetes, intentions for behavioural change, and self rated health measured after an initial random blood glucose test and at 3-6 and 12-15 months later (equivalent time points for controls). RESULTS: A linear mixed effects model with control for clustering by practice found no significant differences between controls and people who screened negative for diabetes in perceived personal risk, behavioural intentions, or self rated health after the first appointment or at 3-6 months or 12-15 months later. After the initial test, people who screened negative reported significantly (but slightly) lower perceived comparative risk (mean difference -0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.30 to -0.02; P=0.04) than the control group at the equivalent time point; no differences were evident at 3-6 and 12-15 months. CONCLUSIONS: A negative test result at diabetes screening does not seem to promote false reassurance, whether this is expressed as lower perceived risk, lower intentions for health related behavioural change, or higher self rated health. Implementing a widespread programme of primary care based stepwise screening for type 2 diabetes is unlikely to cause an adverse shift in the population distribution of plasma glucose and cardiovascular risk resulting from an increase in unhealthy behaviours arising from false reassurance among people who screen negative. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN99175498.