Case Studies

NHS England – Older people workstream ‘Ageing Well’

Background

Frailty is a long-term health condition which is a priority for the NHS, due to the associated increased risks of acute hospital admission, care home admission and death. While typically associated with ageing, not all older people are frail, and not all frail people are old. Twenty percent of people aged 90 and over are estimated to be fit and ageing normally. This is important because as the population ages, most people are living longer with the older population growing at about three percent annually. However, healthy life expectancy (the number of years lived in good health) has not kept pace and is now only 63 years for males and 64 years for females. This generates a need for increased focus on ensuring that people are encouraged and supported to age well. The NHS Long Term Plan sets out world-leading new ambitions for population health management of frailty including systematic and timely identification of people living with frailty and helping people to live in their communities with proactive, targeted, co-ordinated and person-centred care.

To do this well we need to understand how people living with frailty are experiencing services now and to measure experiences as services are developed and policy is implemented.

Action

The data available in the GP Patient Survey is used as a proxy measure of frailty (classed in the survey as respondents self-reporting two out of three of the following: i. difficulties with physical mobility, ii. two or more falls, iii. feeling isolated from others). This provides important information for the older people workstream on prevalence of frailty, providing key population statistics. Importantly it has been used to highlight national geographical variation in prevalence of frailty and associations with deprivation and age (both older populations and also some younger people).

This data has been used in presentations and on social media to highlight areas of inequality, for example, the data shows the north of England, midlands, south west peninsula, south east coast, urban areas and deprived areas have a greater proportion of people living with frailty. It has also provided evidence that many young people also live with a cluster of problems associated with frailty.

Increasing awareness of the issues for people living with frailty and their experiences of care is essential for planning and making service changes. It is crucial that, as a programme of work, patient experience is built into measuring the impact of changes that will be made implementing the Long Term Plan.

Outcome

The data will continue to be used to highlight experiences of people living with frailty. NHS England will continue to develop plans for proactive services which support people at risk of and living with frailty. At the same time they will look at ways to embed patient experience data into system metrics and commissioning tools such as Rightcare, to ensure that changes are improving people’s experiences of services and are meeting their needs.

NHS England

Background

Public satisfaction with general practice remains high, but in recent years patients have increasingly reported, through the GP Patient Survey, more difficulty in accessing services including a decline in good overall experience of making an appointment in general practice. In 2016/17, 11%, (1 in 10) reported not being able to get appointment and the likelihood of getting a convenient appointment was lower if you are in work or young.

Action

NHS England introduced the Prime Ministers Challenge Fund, later the GP Access Fund, to test out new ways to improve access to general practice, including offering evening and weekend appointments and other more innovative ways to access services. 57 schemes across England piloted new ways of working during 14/15 and 15/16 and implementing improved access to general practice subsequently became a requirement for all CCGs in the NHS Operational Planning and Contracting Guidance 2017-19 and refreshed planning guidance issued in February 2018.

Outcome

Everyone across the country now has more timely and convenient access to general practice services, including in the evenings and weekends. CCGs are now focused on ensuring that the new services are advertised to patients and integrated with services such as NHS111 and urgent care. For more information about this programme please go to: www.england.nhs.uk/improving-access

Nuffield Trust/NHS England

Background

In 2018, NHS England commissioned the Nuffield Trust to conduct a project to investigate the impact of improved access upon continuity of care.

Action

Nuffield Trust conducted analysis of data from the GP Patient Survey along with a rapid literature review, interviews with providers and commissioners, site visits to services seeking to combine access and continuity, meetings with clinicians, managers, academics and policy-makers.

Outcome

A report “Improving access and continuity in general practice” including an evidence review and summary have been produced with findings and recommendations for commissioners and policy makers. The report sets out a number of strategies that can be adopted to promote continuity of care, while improving access. You can find the full report here.

NHS England

Background

Ensuring everyone can access services on an equal footing is a key priority for the NHS. One of the seven core requirements for implementing improved access, as set out in the NHS Operational Planning and Contracting Guidance 2017-19, is to address issues of inequalities in patients’ experience of accessing general practice, identified by local evidence including GPPS data, and put actions in place to resolve this.

Action

To support commissioners and providers of general practice services to address inequalities, NHS England has produced a practical resource – Improving Access for all: reducing inequalities in access to general practice services – which aims to promote understanding of groups in the community who are experiencing barriers in accessing services and help to address those barriers as improvements in access to general practice services are implemented. The narrative uses evidence from GPPS data and provides links to case studies and resources to support CCGs in addressing inequalities in access to general practice.

Outcome

The resource is available for providers and commissioners to support them conducting equality and health impact assessments locally and develop an action plan to address inequalities. An animation is available here to support use of the resource.

Nuffield Trust – Access to GP appointments and services indicator

Background

Nuffield Trust analyse results from the GP Patient Survey to assess how access to GP practices has changed over time. The indicator uses data from the survey combined with data collected by the NHS on GP appointments to comment on access to GP services, an important element of quality of care in primary care.

The analysis and more information on this indicator can be found here: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/access-to-gp-services

The Health Foundation – Measuring the continuity of care in general practice

Background

The Health Foundation published a briefing in July 2023 which uses GP Patient Survey data as one way of measuring continuity of care, comparing it with electronic health record-base measures. They present using both electronic health records stratified by patient characteristics as well as the GP Patient Survey data can provide a more rounded picture of continuity than using either measure alone.

The briefing can be found here: https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/briefings/measuring-continuity-of-care-in-general-practice

The Health Foundation – Rethinking access to general practice: it’s not all about supply

Background

The Health Foundation and THIS Institute published long-read analysis rethinking access to general practice, using headline GPPS access findings as part of a broader argument that access is not just about appointment supply, but also about how patients navigate services.

The analysis can be found here: https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/briefings/rethinking-access-to-general-practice-it-s-not-all-about-supply

Case Study: Using the National GP Patient Survey to Improve Patient Experience at Hereford Medical Group (HMG)

Background

The 2024 GP Patient Survey was a low point for Hereford Medical Group. Only 53% of respondents rated their overall experience of the practice as fairly good or very good, placing the practice well below where it wanted to be and significantly below the national position (74%). The practice infographic made the issue highly visible, showing particular challenges around overall experience, access, phone contact, website use and patient confidence in the process after contacting the practice.

Rather than treating the results as a one-off annual judgement, we used them as a catalyst for structured improvement. The aim was clear: to move from the 2024 position to at least the national average within two years. This represented a substantial improvement ambition, not a gentle polish of the silverware.

What we did

We began by using the national patient survey infographic to focus attention across the practice. The results were shared and discussed, not defensively, but as a practical tool for understanding where patients were telling us that their experience needed to improve.

After this we met with the Patient Participation Group to discuss the findings and agree a more proactive approach to patient feedback. A key decision was to introduce a monthly practice-based patient survey, designed to give the practice faster feedback than the annual national survey could provide.

The monthly survey was sent using AccuRx and Microsoft Forms. HMG agreed a focused set of questions linked to the areas highlighted on the practice infographic, including:

• overall experience of the practice
• ease of contacting the practice by phone
• experience of using the practice website
• helpfulness of reception and administrative staff
• whether patients knew what would happen next after their first contact
• confidence, care and communication during appointments

To make the feedback meaningful, the survey was sent each month to patients who had used three different types of appointment:

• urgent or soon appointments, within one week
• routine GP appointments
• other clinical appointments

For each category, around 350 surveys were sent each month. The response rate was approximately 30%, giving the practice a regular and sizeable snapshot of patient experience.

Turning feedback into action

The survey was not introduced simply to collect more data. We created an action plan for each of the main areas where improvement was needed.

This included work to improve:

• phone answering and call handling
• the practice website
• clarity for patients about what would happen after contacting the practice
• experience of access routes
• care-related questions such as listening, confidence, involvement in decisions and whether the patient’s needs were met

Monthly reporting allowed us to track whether changes were making a difference. This meant we did not have to wait another year for the next national survey before knowing whether patient experience was starting to move in the right direction.

Initial impact

The monthly survey gave HMG confidence that improvement was happening before the next national survey results were published. It allowed the practice to see movement in patient experience, identify areas that still needed attention, and maintain focus across the year.

The 2025 national GP Patient Survey then showed significant improvement. HMG’s overall good or very good experience score increased to 71%, compared with 53% in 2024. The 2025 infographic also showed improvements in several access and care-related measures, including contacting the practice, reception and administrative helpfulness, and patient experience at the last appointment.

At that point, the internal survey appeared to be providing a useful early indication of the direction of travel.

What happened next

The 2026 national survey results were disappointing. They were lower than HMG’s local monthly survey would have suggested, and more similar to the 2024 results (56% rated their overall experience as good).

That prompted some honest reflection. The practice had not necessarily been asking the wrong questions, but it had been asking them of a different group of patients.

The local survey was sent to people shortly after they had received an appointment. That gave valuable feedback on actual recent care, but it also meant the sample was weighted towards patients who had successfully accessed the practice and had completed a care interaction.

The national GP Patient Survey works differently. It is sent to a random selection of registered patients, some of whom will have used the practice recently and some of whom may not. It therefore captures a broader view of patient perception, including the views of people who may have tried to access care, but experienced difficulties, chosen not to contact the practice, or formed their view from previous experience.

This was the missing piece.

The local survey was good at measuring the experience of patients who had recently used the practice. It was less good at measuring the wider registered population’s confidence, perception and experience of access.

A note about survey numbers

I, like many managers in practice, have concerns about the sample sizes used. However, I do understand that the GP Patient Survey (GPPS) is carried out in the same way across all practices. This means the results can be used to compare practices with each other and to look at changes over time.

I raised my disappointment with result for 2026 with the GPPS team, especially given the small numbers. The team were very helpful and explained that the results are based on a sample of patients rather than every patient registered with the practice. This means there is always some uncertainty around the percentage reported. GPPS shows this by publishing a confidence interval, which is a range around each result showing where the true figure is likely to lie.

When comparing two results, if these confidence intervals do not overlap, there is stronger evidence that the difference is a genuine one rather than simply being caused by normal variation in survey responses. If they do overlap, as they do for HMG, we need to be more cautious about saying that the results are significantly different.

GPPS is therefore an important measure of patient experience, but it should not be looked at in isolation. Practices should consider it alongside their own local survey results and knowledge of what has been happening at the practice. Major service changes or particular pressures affecting patients may also influence the results.

What we learned

The practice recognised that its first local survey approach had limitations.

It had helped HMG understand the experience of patients who had received care, but it did not fully reflect the broader population view captured by the national survey.

The practice also concluded that the type of appointment was less important than originally thought. The key distinction was not between urgent, routine GP and other appointments. The more important distinction was between:

• patients with a recent experience of using the practice; and
• a random selection of registered patients, whether or not they had recently had an appointment.

This was not a failure of the improvement work. It was a refinement of the measurement system. The practice had built a feedback loop, tested it, found a blind spot and adjusted it.

Revised approach for 2026/27

HMG has now modified its local survey approach.

Instead of surveying three separate appointment groups each month, the practice will now survey:

• 500 patients who have had recent experience of the practice, to understand what is happening for people currently using services; and
• 500 randomly selected registered patients, to better mirror the broader perspective captured by the national GP Patient Survey.

The results from these two groups will be kept separate, because they answer different questions.

The recent-experience group will help HMG understand whether current processes, appointments and interactions are working well.

The random patient group will help HMG understand broader patient confidence, perception and experience, including among people who may not have used the practice recently.

Together, these two measures should give a more balanced view of patient experience and help the practice avoid mistaking improvement in one group for improvement across the whole population.

Outcome

HMG used the 2024 national patient survey as a springboard for improvement rather than a retrospective scorecard. The practice acted on the findings, worked with the PPG, created a monthly feedback process and developed targeted action plans.

The 2025 national survey results showed significant improvement, with overall experience of the practice rising from 53% to 71%.

However, the 2026 results showed that the practice still had more to understand and more to do (56% rated their experience of the practice as good). The key learning was that patient experience must be measured in more than one way. Feedback from patients who have recently received care is valuable, but it does not replace a broader view from the registered population.

HMG’s revised approach now combines both: real-time feedback from recent users and a random monthly sample of registered patients.

Key learning points

• National survey results are most useful when they are translated into practical, local improvement work.
• Practice-level infographics can help make the issues visible and easier to discuss.
• Involving the PPG gave the work greater patient focus and credibility.
• Monthly patient feedback created a faster feedback loop.
• Survey design matters: who is asked can be just as important as what is asked.
• Patients who have recently had an appointment may report a different experience from the wider registered population.
• Local surveys do not need to be perfect, but their limitations must be understood.
• HMG’s revised approach now measures both recent experience and wider patient perception.

Ceri Chaplin
Managing Partner, Hereford Medical Group
July 2026

All survey results are available on the GP Patient Survey website: https://www.gp-patient.co.uk/

Gloucestershire PPG (Patient Participation Group)

Background

When looking at the results of the GP Patient Survey I noticed that only 4% of our patients had a copy of their treatment plan even though 75% of patients said they had an agreed plan and 71% of patients felt it was helpful. This was in contrast to our sister surgery where 43% of patients said they had a copy of their plan.

Action

We decided to add this to the Action Plan for this year, recommending that the surgery adopt the procedure that the sister surgery uses to make sure that all patients have a copy of their treatment plan, and that the PPG would support this.

Outcome

If I hadn’t noticed this in the practice’s survey results it would never have been known that patients weren’t being given copies of their treatment plans. The PPG had never had any feedback on this, probably because most patients don’t know that they can have a copy of their treatment plans. It was solely because of the GP Patient Survey that the PPG found out about this and was able to recommend to the practice that they change how they communicate the treatment plans with their patients.

Wessex Local Medical Committees (LMC)

Background

Wessex LMCs run a series of training sessions for GP practice managers. One session is called ‘How are we doing?’ and looks to support practice managers in benchmarking, interpreting and understanding performance data about their practice and also how others, such as commissioners and the public, view and use this data.

Many practice managers can find the sheer volume of data available overwhelming and are not sure where or how to start. Others are looking for the session to update them on the sources available and how to use them in context.

This session includes a section on the use of patient data and in particular the GPPS.

Action

With regards to GPPS, the website was shared with the delegates and three examples of results from the GPPS were viewed (print offs of anonymised practices) and the delegates were asked to review the data and make judgements on what the information told them about each practice. This was then discussed as a group.

The pros, cons and limitations of the data set were discussed and how this information can be put into context with other datasets. In particular, using the patient survey as a tool to identify issues (such as difficulties getting through on the telephone or access to a GP) and using it as evidence for a need to change in the development of business cases.

The discussions also included how commissioners and the public use this data to benchmark the practice against others.

Outcome

The practice managers taking part became more aware of the content of the GPPS and how the data could be used for positive change. They became more aware of the limitations of the data and how others view it.

Purpose

Whether autism is increasing is a subject of growing interest to researchers, health and social care professionals, policymakers, and the general public. We examined trends over time in the proportion of adults in England self-reporting as autistic, utilising data from an annual repeated cross-sectional survey series of adults registered with a General Practice in England.

Methods

We report annual unweighted frequencies and weighted percentages (with 95% confidence intervals) for survey respondents self-reporting autism for 2018 to 2025, with equivalent data for self-reporting learning disability and a mental health condition. We additionally report the percentage change for 2019 to 2025, compared to a 2018 survey year baseline. Disaggregated data was reported according to age group, gender identity, and ethnicity.

Results

The weighted percentage of adults self-reporting as autistic has increased from 0.9% (95% CI 0.9–0.9) in 2018 to 2.6% (95% CI 2.5–2.7) in 2025, representing a 188.9% increase over a 7-year period. More modest percentage increases over this same time period were observed for learning disability (26.7%) and mental health condition (51.6%). The majority of the increase in adults self-reporting as autistic took place between the 2021 and 2025 survey years, over which time there was a 136.4% increase.

Conclusion

There has been a substantial increase in adults self-reporting as autistic in England over a relatively short period of time, with an absence of similar increases in self-reporting as having a learning disability or a mental health condition. Further research is required to better understand the factors underpinning this change.

Article available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-026-07421-1

Trust and confidence in GPs remains high, but nearly a fifth of patients had a bad experience contacting their practice, the latest GP patient survey shows.

The findings highlight the scale of the challenge facing the new Labour government and came just days after the new health and social care secretary, Wes Streeting, promised to “bring back the family doctor” in order to “fix the front door of the NHS.”

Article available: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1547

Indicator title

GP Patient Survey: Overall experience (GPPS_12_04)

Summary

This indicator measures the percentage of surveyed respondents who would describe their overall experience of their GP surgery, as fairly poor or very poor. Surveyed respondents were aged 18 years or older, and numbers are given for six consecutive years, across areas of England.

Technical description

GP Patient Survey participants were asked to report on their overall experience of their GP surgery (Question 28 within the questionnaire). The original response options were: Very good; fairly good; neither good nor poor; fairly poor; very poor. For each GP practice, the responses for options ‘fairly poor or very poor’ were summed and divided by the total number of responses for Question 28. Weighted GP Patient Survey data by GP practice were provided by the data owners. These data were used to calculate weighted averages of the indicator by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA).

Background

For the last few years, English general practices — which are, traditionally, small — have been encouraged to serve larger populations of registered patients by merging or collaborating with each other. Meanwhile, patient surveys have suggested that continuity of care and access to care are worsening.

Aim

To explore whether increasing the size of the practice population and working collaboratively are linked to changes in continuity of care or access to care.

Methods

The main outcome measures were the proportions of patients at practice level reporting positive experiences of both access and relationship continuity of care in the GP Patient Survey. Changes in proportions between 2013 and 2018 among practices that had grown and those that had, roughly, stayed the same size were compared, as were patients’ experiences, categorised by whether or not practices were working in close collaborations in 2018.

Article available: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7643819/

Aims and objectives

This paper aims to improve understanding of factors that contribute to persistent ethnic disparities in patient satisfaction in England. The specific objectives are to (i) examine ethnic differences in patient satisfaction with their primary care in England; and (ii) establish factors that contribute to ethnic differences in patient satisfaction.

Data and methods

The study is based on secondary analysis of recent General Practitioner Patient Survey (GPPS) datasets of 2019, 2020 and 2021. Descriptive bivariate analysis was used to examine ethnic differences in patient satisfaction across the three years. This was followed with multilevel linear regression, with General Practice (GP) at level-1 and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at level-2 to identify factors contributing to ethnic differences in patient satisfaction.

Article available: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270775

Background

Patient satisfaction is a significant dimension of quality in general practice and has notably declined post-COVID. Understanding the dynamics between practice activities, practice characteristics, and patient experience is vital for improving care quality.

Aim

To investigate the relationship between the volume, modality (telephone or face to face), and practitioner type of general practice appointments and patient experience.

Method

Data from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS) were merged with NHS England’s practice-level appointment data, covering August 2022 to March 2023. Ordinary least squares regressions were estimated of patient satisfaction with access, general satisfaction, preference for a specific GP, and support for managing long-term conditions (dependent variables) against appointment volume, modality (telephone or face to face), and practitioner type.

Article available: https://bjgp.org/content/75/754/e375

Background

Patient experience is a key indicator of healthcare quality. Access to general practice (GP) has shifted with increasing use of digital tools for contacting practices and more remote consultations. These changes may improve patient experience, but unequally across sociodemographic groups. This study examines how patient experience of GP varies by access mode and sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

Retrospective cross- sectional analysis of 759 149 responses from the 2023 GP Patient Survey in England. Mixed- effects logistic regression was used to examine associations between patient experience outcomes—appointment booking and healthcare professional communication—and access modes (online, telephone, in- person), adjusting for sociodemographic factors and practice- level clustering.

Article available: https://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/content/bmjqir/15/1/e003616.full.pdf

Background

Patient satisfaction is a significant dimension of quality in general practice and has notably declined post-COVID. Understanding the dynamics between practice activities, practice characteristics, and patient experience is vital for improving care quality.

Aim

To investigate the relationship between the volume, modality (telephone or face to face), and practitioner type of general practice appointments and patient experience.

Method

Data from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS) were merged with NHS England’s practice-level appointment data, covering August 2022 to March 2023.

Article available: https://bjgp.org/content/75/754/e375

Objectives

To test for differences in primary care family practitioner usage by sexual orientation.

Design

Multivariate logistic analysis of pooled cross-sectional postal questionnaire responses to family practitioner usage.

Setting

Patient-reported use and experience of primary care in England, UK. Data from several waves of a postal questionnaire (General Practice Patient Survey) 2012–2014.

Article available: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/5/e011633

Background

Cervical cancer remains an important global public health concern. Understanding the factors contributing to a decline in screening uptake in high-income countries is fundamental to improving screening rates. We aimed to identify general practice and patient characteristics related to cervical screening coverage in England between 2013 and 2022

Methods

We analyzed a panel of 59 271 General Practice (GP)-years from 7881 GP practices. We applied correlated random effects regression to examine the association between cervical screening uptake and a rich set of GP practice workforce, size, quality and patient characteristics.

Article available: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdad275

Abstract

We examine the relationship between general practice list size and measures of clinical quality and patient satisfaction. Using data on all English practices from 2005/6 to 2016/17, we estimate practice level models with rich data on patient demographics, deprivation, and morbidity. We use lagged list size to allow for potential simultaneity bias from the effect of quality on list size. We compare results from three different estimation methods: pooled ordinary least squares, random practice effects, fixed practice effects. With all three estimation methods increased list size is associated with reductions in all four measures of patient satisfaction. Increases in list size are associated with worse performance on three clinical quality indicators and better performance on three, though the precision and size of the associations varies with the estimation method. The absolute values of the elasticities of the ten quality indicators with respect to list size are small: in all cases a 10% change in list size would change quality by less than 1%. The lack of evidence that large practices have markedly better quality suggests that encouraging practices to form larger, but looser, groupings, may not, in itself, improve their performance.

Article available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114936

Abstract

We examine whether quality affects the choice of practice by patients who are most likely to be well informed about quality: those who leave their practice and join another local practice without changing their address (non-movers). Using 2006/7–2010/11 data on 6766 English practices we estimate fixed effects panel count data models of the number of non-movers leaving a practice and of the number joining. Fewer non-movers leave a practice after increases in clinical quality, the proportion of patients satisfied with access, doctors per patient, and the proportion of doctors qualified in the UK. More join after increases in patient satisfaction with access and doctors per patient. A 10% increase in opening hours satisfaction is associated with a 5.75% reduction in non-movers leaving and a 2.9% increase in non-movers joining. Our results imply that improving information on quality will increase practice incentives to raise quality when competing for patients.

Article available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106395

Background

The high global burden of Long Covid (LC) has significant implications for population well-being, health care, social care and national economies.

Objectives

To explore associations between patient sociodemographic and health characteristics with two outcomes: having LC and expressing uncertainty about having LC, as described by general practice (GP) survey respondents.

Design and setting

Analysis of GP Patient Survey (England), a random sample of 759,149 patients aged 16 years+ registered with a GP in England (2023).

Article available: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70202

Objectives

Little is known about adults who self-report as autistic. This study aimed to profile the demographic characteristics, long-term health conditions and primary care experiences of adults who self-report as autistic (including those with and without a formal diagnosis).

Design and setting

A nationally representative cross-sectional survey of adults registered with National Health Service (NHS) General Practitioner (GP) surgeries in England.

Conclusion

Adults self-reporting as autistic have a distinctive sociodemographic profile and heightened rates of long-term conditions. They report challenges in both accessing primary care and having their needs met when they do. These findings should inform future care initiatives designed to meet the needs of this group.

Article available: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/9/e081388

Associations between diagnostic activity and measures of patient experience in primary care: A cross-sectional ecological study of English general practices

Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Silvia C Mendonca, Carolynn Gildea, Sean McPhail, Michael D Peake, Greg Rubin, Hardeep Singh, William Hamilton, Fiona M Walter, Martin Roland and Gary A Abel

Background

Lower use of endoscopies and urgent referrals for suspected cancer has been linked to poorer outcomes for patients with cancer; it is important to examine potential predictors of variable use.

Aim

To examine the associations between general practice measures of patient experience and practice use of endoscopies or urgent referrals for suspected cancer.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional ecological analysis in English general practices.

Conclusion

Practices where patients rated doctor communication highly were more likely to investigate and refer patients urgently but, in contrast, practices where patients could see their preferred doctor more readily were less likely to do so. This article discusses the possible implications of these findings for clinical practice.

Article available: https://bjgp.org/content/68/666/e9

Jenni Burt, Cathy Lloyd, John Campbell, Martin Roland and Gary Abel

Background

Doctor–patient communication is a key driver of overall satisfaction with primary care. Patients from minority ethnic backgrounds consistently report more negative experiences of doctor–patient communication. However, it is currently unknown whether these ethnic differences are concentrated in one gender or in particular age groups.

Aim

To determine how reported GP–patient communication varies between patients from different ethnic groups, stratified by age and gender.

Design and setting

Analysis of data from the English GP Patient Survey from 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, including 1 599 801 responders.

Conclusion

The identification of groups with particularly marked differences in experience of GP–patient communication — older, female, Asian patients and younger ‘Any other white’ patients — underlines the need for a renewed focus on quality of care for these groups.

Article available: https://bjgp.org/content/66/642/e47

Sexual Minorities in England Have Poorer Health and Worse Health Care Experiences: A National Survey

Marc N Elliott, David E Kanouse, Q Burkhart 1, Gary A Abel, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Megan K Beckett, Mark A Schuster, Martin Roland

Background

The health and healthcare of sexual minorities have recently been identified as priorities for health research and policy.

Objective

To compare the health and healthcare experiences of sexual minorities with heterosexual people of the same gender, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Design

Multivariate analyses of observational data from the 2009/2010 English General Practice Patient Survey.

Conclusion

Sexual minorities suffer both poorer health and worse healthcare experiences. Efforts should be made to recognize the needs and improve the experiences of sexual minorities. Examining patient experience disparities by sexual orientation can inform such efforts.