A paradox of problems in accessing general practice: a qualitative participatory case study

Author:

Voorhees JenniferORCID,Bailey SimonORCID,Waterman HeatherORCID,Checkland KathORCID

Abstract

BackgroundDespite longstanding problems of access to general practice, attempts to understand and address the issues do not adequately include perspectives of the people providing or using care, nor do they use established theories of access to understand complexity.AimTo understand problems of access to general practice from the multiple perspectives of service users and staff using an applied theory of access.Design and settingA qualitative participatory case study in an area of northwest England.MethodA community-based participatory approach was used with qualitative interviews, focus groups, and observation to understand perspectives about accessing general practice. Data were collected between October 2015 and October 2016. Inductive and abductive analysis, informed by Levesqueet al’s theory of access, allowed the team to identify complexities and relationships between interrelated problems.ResultsThis study presents a paradox of problems in accessing general practice, in which the demand on general practice both creates and hides unmet need in the population. Data show how reactive rules to control demand have undermined important aspects of care, such as continuity. The layers of rules and decreased continuity create extra work for practice staff, clinicians, and patients. Complicated rules, combined with a lack of capacity to reach out or be flexible, leave many patients, including those with complex and/or unrecognised health needs, unable to navigate the system to access care. This relationship between demand and unmet need exacerbates existing health inequities.ConclusionUnderstanding the paradox of access problems allows for different targets for change and different solutions to free up capacity in general practice to address the unmet need in the population.

Publisher

Royal College of General Practitioners

Subject

Family Practice

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3