Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme commissioning 2020-2023: associations with patient experience and QOF.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) was introduced by NHS England in 2020 alongside Primary Care Networks (PCNs) with aims of increasing the workforce and improving patient outcomes. AIM: Describe the uptake of direct-patient care (DPC)-ARRS roles and its impact on patients' experiences. DESIGN AND SETTING: Ecological study using 2020-2023 PCN and Practice workforce data, registered patient characteristics, the General Practice Patient Survey, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). METHODS: Descriptive statistics with associations examined using quantile and linear regression. RESULTS: By March 2023, 17,714 FTE DPC-ARRS roles were commissioned by 1,223 PCNs. PCNs with fewer constituent practices had more DPC-ARRS roles per population (p<0.001) as did PCNs with more FTE GPs per population (p=0.012). DPC-ARRS commissioning did not vary with age, proportion female or deprivation of practice populations. DPC-ARRS roles were associated with small increases in patient satisfaction (0.8 percentage points increase in patients satisfied per one DPC-ARRS FTE) and perceptions of access (0.7 percentage points increase in patients reporting 'good' experience of making an appointment per one DPC-ARRS FTE), but not with overall QOF achievement. CONCLUSIONS: The commissioning of DPC-ARRS roles was associated with small increases in patient satisfaction and perceptions of access, but not with QOF achievement. DPC-ARRS roles were employed in areas with more GPs rather than compensating for a shortage of doctors. Single practice PCNs commissioned more roles per registered population, which may be advantageous to single practice PCNs. Further evaluation of the scheme is warranted.

Further development and validation of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ).

OBJECTIVES: To undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post. MEASURES: Baseline survey: sociodemographics, MTBQ (original or version with scale reversed), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), four questions (from QQ-10) on ease of completing the questionnaires. Follow-up survey (1-4 weeks after baseline): MTBQ, TBQ and QQ-10. Anonymous data collected from electronic GP records: consultations (preceding 12 months) and long-term conditions. The proportion of missing data and distribution of responses were examined for the original and reversed versions of the MTBQ and the TBQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman's rank correlation (Rs) assessed test-retest reliability and construct validity, respectively. Ease of completing the MTBQ and TBQ was compared. Interpretability was assessed by grouping global MTBQ scores into 0 and tertiles (>0). RESULTS: 244 adults completed the baseline survey (consent rate 31%, mean age 70 years) and 225 completed the follow-up survey. Reversing the scale did not reduce floor effects or data skewness. The global MTBQ scores had good test-retest reliability (ICC for agreement at baseline and follow-up 0.765, 95% CI 0.702 to 0.816). Global MTBQ score was correlated with global TBQ score (Rs 0.77, p<0.001), weakly correlated with number of consultations (Rs 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (Rs 0.23, p<0.001), but not correlated with number of long-term conditions (Rs -0.063, p=0.330). Most participants agreed that both the MTBQ and TBQ were easy to complete and included aspects they were concerned about. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates test-retest reliability and ease of completion of the MTBQ and builds on a previous study demonstrating good content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire.

A primary care research agenda for multiple long-term conditions: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), also known as multimorbidity, has been identified as a priority research topic globally. Research priorities from the perspectives of patients and research funders have been described. Although most care for MLTC is delivered in primary care, the priorities of academic primary care have not been identified. AIM: To identify and prioritise the academic primary care research agenda for MLTC. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a three-phase study with primary care MLTC researchers from the UK and other high-income countries. METHOD: The study consisted of: an open-ended survey question, a face-to-face workshop to elaborate questions with researchers from the UK and Ireland, and a two-round Delphi consensus survey with international multimorbidity researchers. RESULTS: Twenty-five primary care researchers responded to the initial open-ended survey and generated 84 potential research questions. In the subsequent workshop discussion (n = 18 participants), this list was reduced to 31 questions. The longlist of 31 research questions was included in round 1 of the Delphi; 27 of the 50 (54%) round 1 invitees and 24 of the 27 (89%) round 2 invitees took part in the Delphi. Ten questions reached final consensus. These questions focused broadly on addressing the complexity of the patient group with development of new models of care for multimorbidity, and methods and data development. CONCLUSION: These high-priority research questions offer funders and researchers a basis on which to build future grant calls and research plans. Addressing complexity in this research is needed to inform improvements in systems of care and for disease prevention.

Doctor-patient communication about blood tests: Qualitative interview study in general practice.

Context: Shared decision making is widely advocated, however most research focuses on treatment decisions. Evidence for shared decision-making in relation to diagnostic testing is limited to specific tests such as prostate specific antigen, screening and genetic tests. There is a lack of evidence regarding the relevance of shared decision-making to routine blood tests, despite increasing rates of laboratory testing in primary care. Objectives: To explore shared decision making and communication around routine blood tests in primary care. Study design: Qualitative interview study Setting: UK primary care Population studied: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients at two time points: (a) at or soon after their blood test and (b) after they had received their test results. We also undertook interviews with the patients' GPs who requested the tests. This gave us paired data which enabled to us to examine areas of congruence and dissonance between GPs' and patients' expectations, experience and understanding of testing. A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed, reflecting a range of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis using a mixture of inductive and deductive coding and constant comparison. Results: There were no examples of shared decision making identified in any of the interviews, indeed patients were frequently unaware of which blood tests had been done and why. Barriers to a shared understanding of blood testing were identified including the complexity and technical nature of information, a lack of resources for information sharing and a perception that blood tests were low priority for information sharing. Doctors perceived that a paternalistic approach to testing could be justified to protect patients from anxiety. Misunderstanding and a lack of communication around testing and test results led to uncertainty, anxiety and frustration for patients. Conclusions: The results have implications, not just for models of shared decision making, but more fundamentally, informed consent. Shared decision-making for diagnostic testing differs from treatment decisions. Promoting a shared understanding and shared decision-making could help rationalize testing, potentially reducing unnecessary investigations and improving patient-centered care.