Practice list size, workforce composition and performance in English general practice: a latent profile analysis.
England
General practice
Latent profile analysis
Practice performance
Primary care
Journal
BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jun 2024
11 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
19
01
2024
accepted:
03
06
2024
medline:
12
6
2024
pubmed:
12
6
2024
entrez:
11
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Following government calls for General Practices in England to work at scale, some practices have grown in size from traditionally small, General Practitioner (GP)-led organisations to large multidisciplinary enterprises. We assessed the effect of practice list size and workforce composition on practice performance in clinical outcomes and patient experience. We linked five practice-level datasets in England to obtain a single dataset of practice workforce, list size, proportion of registered patients ≥ 65 years of age, female-male sex ratio, deprivation, rurality, GP contract type, patient experience of care, and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and non-QOF clinical processes and outcomes. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was used to cluster general practices into groups based on practice list size and workforce composition. Bayesian Information Criterion, Akaike Information Criterion and deliberation within the research team were used to determine the most informative number of groups. One-way ANOVA was used to assess how groups differed on indicator variables and other variables of interest. Linear regression was used to assess the association between practice group and practice performance. A total of 6024 practices were available for class assignment. We determined that a 3-class grouping provided the most meaningful interpretation; 4494 (74.6%) were classified as 'Small GP-reliant practices', 1400 (23.2%) were labelled 'Medium-size GP-led practices with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) input' and 131 (2.2%) practices were named 'Large multidisciplinary practices'. Small GP-reliant practices outperformed larger multidisciplinary practices on all patient-reported indicators except on confidence and trust where medium-size GP-led practices with MDT input appeared to do better. There was no difference in performance between small GP-reliant practices and larger multidisciplinary practices on QOF incentivised indicators except on asthma reviews where medium-size GP-led practices with MDT input performed worse than smaller GP-reliant practices and immunisation coverage where the same group performed better than smaller GP-reliant practices. For non-incentivised indicators, larger multidisciplinary practices had higher cancer detection rates than small GP-reliant practices. Small GP-reliant practices were found to provide better patient reported access, continuity of care, experience and satisfaction with care. Larger multidisciplinary practices appeared to have better cancer detection rates but had no effect on other clinical processes and outcomes. As England moves towards larger multidisciplinary practices efforts should be made to preserve good patient experience.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Following government calls for General Practices in England to work at scale, some practices have grown in size from traditionally small, General Practitioner (GP)-led organisations to large multidisciplinary enterprises. We assessed the effect of practice list size and workforce composition on practice performance in clinical outcomes and patient experience.
METHODS
METHODS
We linked five practice-level datasets in England to obtain a single dataset of practice workforce, list size, proportion of registered patients ≥ 65 years of age, female-male sex ratio, deprivation, rurality, GP contract type, patient experience of care, and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and non-QOF clinical processes and outcomes. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was used to cluster general practices into groups based on practice list size and workforce composition. Bayesian Information Criterion, Akaike Information Criterion and deliberation within the research team were used to determine the most informative number of groups. One-way ANOVA was used to assess how groups differed on indicator variables and other variables of interest. Linear regression was used to assess the association between practice group and practice performance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 6024 practices were available for class assignment. We determined that a 3-class grouping provided the most meaningful interpretation; 4494 (74.6%) were classified as 'Small GP-reliant practices', 1400 (23.2%) were labelled 'Medium-size GP-led practices with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) input' and 131 (2.2%) practices were named 'Large multidisciplinary practices'. Small GP-reliant practices outperformed larger multidisciplinary practices on all patient-reported indicators except on confidence and trust where medium-size GP-led practices with MDT input appeared to do better. There was no difference in performance between small GP-reliant practices and larger multidisciplinary practices on QOF incentivised indicators except on asthma reviews where medium-size GP-led practices with MDT input performed worse than smaller GP-reliant practices and immunisation coverage where the same group performed better than smaller GP-reliant practices. For non-incentivised indicators, larger multidisciplinary practices had higher cancer detection rates than small GP-reliant practices.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Small GP-reliant practices were found to provide better patient reported access, continuity of care, experience and satisfaction with care. Larger multidisciplinary practices appeared to have better cancer detection rates but had no effect on other clinical processes and outcomes. As England moves towards larger multidisciplinary practices efforts should be made to preserve good patient experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38862906
doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02462-w
pii: 10.1186/s12875-024-02462-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
207Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : GPPG1K9R
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Barts Charity
ID : MGU0504
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, Report, House of Commons. 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 9]. The future of general practice: Fourth Report of Session 2022–23. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmhealth/113/report.html .
British Medical Association. BMA. 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 9]. Pressures in general practice data analysis. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/pressures-in-general-practice-data-analysis .
Connor R. A Guide To Mergers For General Practice v1.3 31-03-16 NHS England South (South West) 2 Document Version Control. 2016.
Connor R. A Guide To Networks and Federations For General Practice v1.3 31-03-16 NHS England South (South West) 2 Document Version Control. 2016.
Primary Care Networks. - NHS England [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 20]. https://www.england.nhs.uk/primary-care/primary-care-networks/ .
Addicott R, Ham C. Commissioning and funding general practice: Making the case for family care networks [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Nov 9]. www.kingsfund.org.uk .
Smith J, Holder H, Edwards N, Maybin J, Parker H, Rosen R et al. Securing the future of general practice: new models of primary care [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2023 Nov 9]. www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/publications/securing-future-general-practice .
Bostock NGP. Online. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 7]. Fifth of GP practices have closed or merged since NHS England was formed. https://www.gponline.com/fifth-gp-practices-closed-merged-nhs-england-formed/article/1790429 .
Ng CWL, Ng KP. Does practice size matter? Review of effects on quality of care in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(614):e604.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X671588
pubmed: 23998840
pmcid: 3750799
Pringle M, Stewart-Evans C, Coupland C, Williams I, Allison S, Sterland J. Influences on control in diabetes mellitus: patient, doctor, practice, or delivery of care? BMJ. BMJ. 1993;306(6878):630.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6878.630
pubmed: 8461816
pmcid: 1676967
Campbell SM, Hann M, Hacker J, Burns C, Oliver D, Thapar A, et al. Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study. BMJ: Br Med J. 2001;323(7316):784.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7316.784
Barker I, Steventon A, Deeny SR. Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: Cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ (Online). 2017;356:84.
Forbes LJL, Forbes H, Sutton M, Checkland K, Peckham S. Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice: observational study using data from the Uk gp patient survey. Br J Gen Pract. 2020;70(701):E906–15.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X713429
pubmed: 33139333
pmcid: 7643819
Rosen R, Kumpunen S, Curry N, Davies A, Pettigrew L, Kossarova L. Is bigger better? Lessons for large-scale general practice. 2016.
Kelly E, Stoye G, Does. GP Practice Size Matter? GP Practice Size and the Quality of Primary Care. 2014.
Gibson J, Francetic I, Spooner S, Checkland K, Sutton M. Primary care workforce composition and population, professional, and system outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2022;72(718):E307–15.
doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0593
pubmed: 35379602
Holdroyd I, Chadwick W, Harvey-Sullivan A, Bartholomew T, Massou E, Tzortziou Brown V et al. Single-handed versus multiple-handed General practices: A cross-sectional study of quality outcomes in England. J Health Serv Res Policy [Internet]. 2023 Dec 13 [cited 2023 Dec 30]; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196231218830 .
Sinha P, Calfee CS, Delucchi KL. Practitioner’s guide to latent class analysis: methodological considerations and common pitfalls. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(1):e63.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004710
pubmed: 33165028
pmcid: 7746621
Weller BE, Bowen NK, Faubert SJ. Latent class analysis: a guide to best practice. J Black Psychol. 2020;46(4):287–311.
doi: 10.1177/0095798420930932
NHS Digital. General Practice Workforce, 31 January 2023 [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 4]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/general-and-personal-medical-services/31-january-2023 .
NHS Digital. GP Patient Survey: surveys and reports [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 4]. https://gp-patient.co.uk/surveysandreports .
Quality, Framework O. 2021-22 - NHS Digital [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 4]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/quality-and-outcomes-framework-achievement-prevalence-and-exceptions-data/2021-22 .
Office for Health Improvement & Disparities. Public Health Profiles. 2023 [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 4]. https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/ .
NHS Payments to General Practice. England 2021/22 - NHS Digital [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 4]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-payments-to-general-practice/england-2021-22 .
Muthén BO, Muthén LK. Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2000;24(6):882–91.
doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x
pubmed: 10888079
Weden MM, Zabin LS. Gender and ethnic differences in the co-occurrence of adolescent risk behaviors. Ethn Health [Internet]. 2005 Aug [cited 2023 Aug 19];10(3):213–34. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13557850500115744 .
Ferrari S, Cribari-Neto F, Ferrari SLP. Beta Regression for Modelling Rates and Proportions. J Appl Stat [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2024 May 25];31(7):799–815. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjas20 .
Gelman A, Hill J. Data Analysis using regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press; 2006.
GP Patient Survey. 2019: Technical Annex [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 8]. https://www.gp-patient.co . uk/downloads/2019/GPPS_2019_Technical_Annex_PUBLIC.pdf.
Ashworth M, Armstrong D. The relationship between general practice characteristics and quality of care: a national survey of quality indicators used in the UK Quality and outcomes Framework, 2004-5. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-68
Network Contract Directed Enhanced Service. Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme Guidance. 2019.
Background Data Quality Statement. - NHS England Digital [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 8]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/general-and-personal-medical-services/29-february-2024/background-data-quality-statement .
Data Quality 2020. /21 release - NHS England Digital [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 8]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-payments-to-general-practice/england-2020-21/data-quality-copy .
Kontopantelis E, Roland M, Reeves D. Patient experience of access to primary care: identification of predictors in a national patient survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11.
Bower P, Campbell S, Bojke C, Sibbald B. Team structure, team climate and the quality of care in primary care: an observational study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(4):273–9.
doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.4.273
pubmed: 12897360
pmcid: 1743743
Baker R. Characteristics of practices, general practitioners and patients related to levels of patients’ satisfaction with consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(411):601–5.
pubmed: 8945798
pmcid: 1239785
Baker R, Streatfield J. What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45(401):654–9.
pubmed: 8745863
pmcid: 1239467
Thalanany M, Derrough T. Pneumococcal vaccination: Uptake and coverage in primary care. Qual Prim Care. 2005;13(3):131–7.
Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Coupland C, Hammersley V, Wilson A. Do single handed practices offer poorer care? Cross sectional survey of processes and outcomes. BMJ. 2001;323(7308):320–3.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7308.320
pubmed: 11498490
pmcid: 37320
Vedavanam S, Steel N, Broadbent J, Maisey S, Howe A. Recorded quality of care for depression in general practice: an observational study. Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(559):e32.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp09X395085
pubmed: 19192365
pmcid: 2629839
Ironmonger D, Edeghere O, Verlander NQ, Gossain S, Hopkins S, Hilton B, et al. Effect of general practice characteristics and antibiotic prescribing on Escherichia coli antibiotic non-susceptibility in the West Midlands region of England: a 4 year ecological study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(3):787–94.
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx465
pubmed: 29309593
Hugo P, Kendrick T, Reid F, Lacey H. GP referral to an eating disorder service: why the wide variation? Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(454):380–3.
pubmed: 10897535
pmcid: 1313702
Rushton JL, Fant KE, Clark SJ. Use of practice guidelines in the primary care of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics (2004) 114 (1): e23–e28. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.114.1.e23
Majeed A, Gray J, Ambler G, Carroll K, Bindman AB. Association between practice size and quality of care of patients with ischaemic heart disease: Cross sectional study. Br Med J. 2003;326(7385):371–2.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7385.371
Abdelhamid AS, Maisey S, Steel N. Predictors of the quality of care for asthma in general practice: an observational study. Fam Pract. 2009;27(2):186–91.
doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp095
pubmed: 20026552
Broadbent J, Maisey S, Holland R, Steel N. Recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis: an observational study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(557):839–43.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp08X376177
pubmed: 19068156
pmcid: 2593532
Barrera L, Oviedo D, Silva A, Tovar D, Méndez F. Continuity of Care and the control of high blood pressure at Colombian Primary Care Services. Inq (United States). 2021;58:1–11.
Chan KS, Wan EYF, Chin WY, Cheng WHG, Ho MK, Yu EYT, et al. Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01493-x
Van den Berg MJ, Van Loenen T, Westert GP. Accessible and continuous primary care may help reduce rates of emergency department use. An international survey in 34 countries. Fam Pract. 2016;33(1):42–50.
doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmv082
pubmed: 26511726
Flocke SA, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ. The Association of Attributes of Primary Care with the delivery of clinical preventive services. Med Care. 1998;36(8 SUPPL.).
Gray DJP, Sidaway-Lee K, White E, Thorne A, Evans PH. Continuity of care with doctors - A matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):21161.
Hjortdahl P. Continuity of care: general practitioners’ knowledge about, and sense of responsibility toward their patients. Fam Pract. 1992;9(1):3–8.
doi: 10.1093/fampra/9.1.3
pubmed: 1634024
Baird B, Reeve H, Ross S, Honeyman M, Nosa-Ehima M, Sahib B et al. Innovative models of general practice. The King’s Fund. 2018.
Primary Care Network Workforce. - NHS England Digital [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 16]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/primary-care-network-workforce .
Appointments in general practice. supporting information - NHS England Digital [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 13]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/appointments-in-general-practice/appointments-in-general-practice-supporting-information#what-this-publication-cannot-tell-you .
Baird B, Beech J. Integrating additional roles into primary care networks. Kings Fund. 2022.
Pettigrew LM, Kumpunen S, Mays N, Rosen R, Posaner R. The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England’s NHS: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(668):e168–77.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X694997
pubmed: 29440013
pmcid: 5819982