Skill-mix change and outcomes in primary care: Longitudinal analysis of general practices in England 2015-2019.

General practice Primary care Skill-mix Workforce

Journal

Social science & medicine (1982)
ISSN: 1873-5347
Titre abrégé: Soc Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8303205

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2022
Historique:
received: 14 03 2022
revised: 21 06 2022
accepted: 14 07 2022
pubmed: 26 7 2022
medline: 18 8 2022
entrez: 25 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Increasing the employment of staff with new clinical roles in primary care has been proposed as a solution to the shortages of GPs and nurses. However, evidence of the impacts this has on practice outcomes is limited. We examine how outcomes changed following changes in skill-mix in general practices in England. We obtained annual data on staff in 6,296 English general practices between 2015 and 2019 and grouped professionals into four categories: GPs, Nurses, Health Professionals, and Healthcare Associate Professionals. We linked 10 indicators of quality of care covering the dimensions of accessibility, clinical effectiveness, user experiences and health system costs. We used both fixed-effect and first-differences regressions to model changes in staff composition and outcomes, adjusting for practice and population factors. Employment increased over time for all four staff groups, with largest increases for Healthcare Professionals (from 0.04 FTE per practice in 2015 to 0.28 in 2019) and smallest for Nurses who experienced a 3.5 percent growth. Increases in numbers of GPs and Nurses were positively associated with changes in practice activity and outcomes. The introduction of new roles was negatively associated with patient satisfaction: a one FTE increase in Health Professionals was associated with decreases of 0.126 [-0.175, -0.078] and 0.116 [-0.161, -0.071] standard deviations in overall patient satisfaction and satisfaction with making an appointment. Pharmacists improved medicine prescribing outcomes. All staff categories were associated with higher health system costs. There was little evidence of direct complementarity or substitution between different staff groups. Introduction of new roles to support GPs does not have straightforward effects on quality or patient satisfaction. Problems can arise from the complex adaptation required to adjust practice organisation and from the novelty of these roles to patients. These findings suggest caution over the implementation of policies encouraging more employment of different professionals in primary care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Increasing the employment of staff with new clinical roles in primary care has been proposed as a solution to the shortages of GPs and nurses. However, evidence of the impacts this has on practice outcomes is limited. We examine how outcomes changed following changes in skill-mix in general practices in England.
METHODS
We obtained annual data on staff in 6,296 English general practices between 2015 and 2019 and grouped professionals into four categories: GPs, Nurses, Health Professionals, and Healthcare Associate Professionals. We linked 10 indicators of quality of care covering the dimensions of accessibility, clinical effectiveness, user experiences and health system costs. We used both fixed-effect and first-differences regressions to model changes in staff composition and outcomes, adjusting for practice and population factors.
RESULTS
Employment increased over time for all four staff groups, with largest increases for Healthcare Professionals (from 0.04 FTE per practice in 2015 to 0.28 in 2019) and smallest for Nurses who experienced a 3.5 percent growth. Increases in numbers of GPs and Nurses were positively associated with changes in practice activity and outcomes. The introduction of new roles was negatively associated with patient satisfaction: a one FTE increase in Health Professionals was associated with decreases of 0.126 [-0.175, -0.078] and 0.116 [-0.161, -0.071] standard deviations in overall patient satisfaction and satisfaction with making an appointment. Pharmacists improved medicine prescribing outcomes. All staff categories were associated with higher health system costs. There was little evidence of direct complementarity or substitution between different staff groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction of new roles to support GPs does not have straightforward effects on quality or patient satisfaction. Problems can arise from the complex adaptation required to adjust practice organisation and from the novelty of these roles to patients. These findings suggest caution over the implementation of policies encouraging more employment of different professionals in primary care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35872540
pii: S0277-9536(22)00530-5
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115224
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

115224

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 17/08/25
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Igor Francetic (I)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: igor.francetic@manchester.ac.uk.

Jon Gibson (J)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Sharon Spooner (S)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Katherine Checkland (K)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Matt Sutton (M)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE) Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Melbourne Institute, Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH