Associations between corporate ownership of primary care providers and doctor wellbeing, workload, access, organizational efficiency, and service quality.

Traditionally, in many countries general practices have been privately-owned independent small businesses. However, the last three decades has seen the rise of large corporate medical groups defined as private companies which are able to have non-GP shareholders and with branches across many locations. The greater prominence of profit motives may have implications for costs, access to care and quality of care. We estimate that 45% of GPs in Australia worked in a practice that was a private company, and within this group over one third (19.9% of total) worked in a corporate medical group (a private company with 10 or more practice locations). We examine the association between being in a corporate medical group and 19 outcomes classified into five groups: GP wellbeing, workload, patient access, organizational efficiency, and service quality. GPs who worked in such groups were more likely to be older, qualified overseas, and to have a conscientious personality. There was mixed evidence on GPs wellbeing, with GPs in corporate medical groups reporting a higher turnover of GPs but similar levels of job satisfaction. GP workload was similar in terms of hours worked and after hours work but they reported a lower work-life balance. Patient access was better in terms of lower fees charged to patients but there was weak evidence that patients waited longer. GPs in corporate medical groups reported higher organisational efficiency because GPs spent less time spent on administration and management, had more nurses per GP, but despite this GPs were more likely to undertake tasks someone less qualified could do suggesting that nurses were complements not substitutes. There were no differences in service quality (teaching, patient complaints, consultation length, patients seen per hour). Corporate medical groups have become a substantial part of primary care provision in Australia. There is evidence they are more efficient, patient access is better with lower out of pocket costs and there are no differences in our measures service quality, but concerns remain about GP's wellbeing and work-life balance. Further research is needed on continuity of care and patient reported experiences and health outcomes.

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

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.

The role of the staff MFF in distributing NHS funding: taking account of differences in local labour market conditions.

The National Health Service (NHS) in England distributes substantial funds to health-care providers in different geographical areas to pay for the health care required by the populations they serve. The formulae that determine this distribution reflect populations' health needs and local differences in the prices of inputs. Labour is the most important input and area differences in the price of labour are measured by the Staff Market Forces Factor (MFF). This Staff MFF has been the subject of much debate. Though the Staff MFF has operated for almost 30 years this is the first academic paper to evaluate and test the theory and method that underpin the MFF. The theory underpinning the Staff MFF is the General Labour Market method. The analysis reported here reveals empirical support for this theory in the case of nursing staff employed by NHS hospitals, but fails to identify similar support for its application to medical staff. The paper demonstrates the extent of spatial variation in private sector and NHS wages, considers the choice of comparators and spatial geography, incorporates vacancy modelling and illustrates the effect of spatial smoothing.

Determinants of primary care workforce variation in England.

BACKGROUND: The General Practice Forward View (GPFV) outlined how the government plans to attain a strengthened model of general practice. A key component of this proposal is an expansion of the workforce by employing a varied range of practitioners, in other words 'skill mix'. A significant proportion of this investment focuses on increasing the number of 'new' roles such as clinical pharmacists, physiotherapists, physician associates, and paramedics. AIM: The aim of this study is to examine what practice characteristics are associated with the current employment of these 'new' roles. METHOD: The study uses practice level workforce data (2015-2019), publicly available from NHS Digital. The authors model FTE of specific workforce groups (for example, advanced nurse) as a function of deprivation, practice rurality, patient demographics (total list size and percentage of patients aged >65 years) and FTEs from other staff groups. RESULTS: Although analysis is ongoing, initial estimation suggests that the employment of 'new' roles has occurred in larger practices (in terms of list size), in practices with a higher proportion of patients living in deprived areas and practices with a larger proportion of patients aged >65 years. FTE for advanced nurses is negatively associated with GP FTE. CONCLUSION: A negative correlation between advanced nurse FTE and GP FTE is potentially suggestive of substitution between roles, deliberate or otherwise. For example, practices may employ 'new' roles if they are unable to recruit GPs or they may recruit staff to free up GP time. Further work is needed to confirm these findings and to explore the reasons behind practice employment decisions.

Regional variation in practitioner employment in general practices in England: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, UK health policy makers have responded to a GP shortage by introducing measures to support increased healthcare delivery by practitioners from a wider range of backgrounds. AIM: To ascertain the composition of the primary care workforce in England at a time when policy changes affecting deployment of different practitioner types are being introduced. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a comparative analysis of workforce data reported to NHS Digital by GP practices in England. METHOD: Statistics are reported using practice-level data from the NHS Digital June 2019 data extract. Because of the role played by Health Education England (HEE) in training and increasing the skills of a healthcare workforce that meets the needs of each region, the analysis compares average workforce composition across the 13 HEE regions in England RESULTS: The workforce participation in terms of full-time equivalent of each staff group across HEE regions demonstrates regional variation. Differences persist when expressed as mean full-time equivalent per thousand patients. Despite policy changes, most workers are employed in long-established primary care roles, with only a small proportion of newer types of practitioner, such as pharmacists, paramedics, physiotherapists, and physician associates. CONCLUSION: This study provides analysis of a more detailed and complete primary care workforce dataset than has previously been available in England. In describing the workforce composition at this time, the study provides a foundation for future comparative analyses of changing practitioner deployment before the introduction of primary care networks, and for evaluating outcomes and costs that may be associated with these changes.

Analysis of consultants' NHS and private incomes in England in 2003/4.

OBJECTIVE: Consultants employed by the NHS in England are allowed to undertake private practice to supplement their NHS income. Until the introduction of a new contract from October 2003, those employed on full-time contracts were allowed to earn private incomes no greater than 10% of their NHS income. In this paper we investigate the magnitude and determinants of consultants' NHS and private incomes. DESIGN: Quantitative analysis of financial data. SETTING: A unique, anonymized, non-disclosive dataset derived from tax returns for a sample of 24,407 consultants (92.3% of the total) in England for the financial year 2003/4. MAIN OUTCOME METHODS: The conditional mean total, NHS and private incomes earned by age group, type of contract, specialty and region of place of work. RESULTS: The mean annual total, NHS and private incomes across all consultants in 2003/4 were pound 110,773, pound 76,628 and pound 34,144, respectively. Incomes varied by age, type of contract, specialty and region of place of work. The ratio of mean private to NHS income for consultants employed on a full-time contract was 0.26. The mean private income across specialties ranged from pound 5,144 (for paediatric neurology) to pound 142,723 (plastic surgery). There was a positive association between mean private income and NHS waiting lists across specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Consultants employed on full-time contracts on average exceeded the limits on private income stipulated by the 10% rule. Specialty is a more important determinant of income than the region in which the consultant works. Further work is required to explore the association between mean private income and waiting lists.