Practice nurses' workload, career intentions and the impact of professional isolation: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Practice nurses have a key role within UK general practice, especially since the 2004 GMS contract. This study aimed to describe that role, identify how professionally supported they felt and their career intentions. An additional aim was to explore whether they felt isolated and identify contributory factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey in one large urban Scottish Health Board, targeted all practice nurses (n = 329). Domains included demographics, workload, training and professional support. Following univariate descriptive statistics, associations between categorical variables were tested using the chi-square test or chi-square test for trend; associations between dichotomous variables were tested using Fisher's Exact test. Variables significantly associated with isolation were entered into a binary logistic regression model using backwards elimination. RESULTS: There were 200 responses (61.0% response rate). Most respondents were aged 40 or over and were practice nurses for a median of 10 years. Commonest clinical activities were coronary heart disease management, cervical cytology, diabetes and the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Although most had a Personal Development Plan and a recent appraisal, 103 (52.3%) felt isolated at least sometimes; 30 (15.5%) intended leaving practice nursing within 5 years.Isolated nurses worked in practices with smaller list sizes (p = 0.024) and nursing teams (p = 0.003); were less likely to have someone they could discuss a clinical/professional (p = 0.002) or personal (p < 0.001) problem with; used their training and qualifications less (p < 0.001); had less productive appraisals (p < 0.001); and were less likely to intend staying in practice nursing (p = 0.009). Logistic regression analysis showed that nurses working alone or in teams of two were 6-fold and 3.5-fold more likely to feel isolated. Using qualifications and training to the full, having productive appraisals and planning to remain in practice nursing all mitigated against feeling isolated. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of practice nurses reported feeling isolated, at least some of the time. They were more likely to be in small practices and more likely to be considering leaving practice nursing. Factors contributing to their isolation were generally located within the practice environment. Providing support to these nurses within their practice setting may help alleviate the feelings of isolation, and could reduce the number considering leaving practice nursing.

Impact of the 2004 GMS contract on practice nurses: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The new GMS contract has led to practice nurses playing an important role in the delivery of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). AIM: This study investigated how practice nurses perceive the changes in their work since the contract's inception. DESIGN OF STUDY: A qualitative approach, sampling practice nurses from practices in areas of high and low deprivation, with a range of QOF scores. SETTING: Glasgow, UK. METHOD: Individual interviews were conducted, audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: roles and incentives, workload, and patient care. Practice nurses were positive about the development of their professional role since the introduction of the new GMS contract but had mixed views about whether their status had changed. Views on incentives (largely related to financial rewards) also varied, but most felt under-rewarded, irrespective of practice QOF achievement. All reported a substantial increase in workload, related to incentivised QOF domains with greater 'box ticking' and data entry, and less time to spend with patients. Although the structure created by the new contract was generally welcomed, many were unconvinced that it improved patient care and felt other important areas of care were neglected. Concern was also expressed about a negative effect of the QOF on holistic care, including ethical concerns and detrimental effects on the patient-nurse relationship, which were regarded as a core value. CONCLUSIONS: The new GMS contract has given practice nurses increased responsibility. However, discontent about how financial gains are distributed and negative impacts on core values may lead to detrimental long-term effects on motivation and morale.

Practice size and quality attainment under the new GMS contract: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new General Medical Services contract, for the first time, incentivises certain areas of general practice workload over others. The ability of practices to deliver high quality care may be related to the size of the practice itself. AIM: To explore the relationship between practice size and points attained in the QOF. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional analyses of routinely available data. SETTING: Urban general practice in mainland Scotland. METHOD: QOF points and disease prevalence were obtained for all urban general practices in Scotland (n = 638) and linked to data on the practice, GP and patient population. The relationship between QOF point attainment, disease prevalence and practice size was examined using univariate statistical analyses. RESULTS: Smaller practices were more likely to be located in areas of socioeconomic deprivation; had patients with poorer health; and were less likely to participate in voluntary practice-based quality schemes. Overall, smaller practices received fewer QOF points compared to larger practices (P = 0.003), due to lower point attainment in the organisational domain (P = 0.002). There were no differences across practice size in the other domains of the QOF, including clinical care. Smaller practices reported higher levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and mental health conditions and lower levels of asthma, epilepsy and hypothyroidism. There was no difference in the reported prevalence of hypertension or coronary heart disease (CHD) across practices, in contrast to CHD mortality for patients aged under 70 years, where the mortality rate was 40% greater for single-handed practices compared with large practices. CONCLUSIONS: Although smaller practices obtained fewer points than larger practices under the QOF, this was due to lower scores in the organisational domain of the contract rather than to lower scores for clinical care. Single-handed practices, in common with larger practices serving more deprived populations, reported lower than expected CHD prevalence in their practice populations. Our results suggest that smaller practices continue to provide clinical care of comparable quality to larger practices but that they may need increased resources or support, particularly in the organisational domain, to address unmet need or more demanding QOF criteria.

The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure.

BACKGROUND: Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. RESULTS: The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly skewed distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less skewed distribution (skew -0.634, kurtosis -0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.