Half a century of the inverse care law: A comparison of general practitioner job satisfaction and patient satisfaction in deprived and affluent areas of Scotland.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 'inverse care law', first described in 1971, results from a mismatch of healthcare need and healthcare supply in deprived areas. GPs in such areas struggle to cope with the high levels of demand resulting in shorter consultations and poorer patient outcomes. We compare recent national GP and patient satisfaction data to investigate the ongoing existence of this disparity in Scotland. METHODS AND RESULTS: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional national surveys (2017/2018) on upper and lower deprivation quintiles. GP measures; job satisfaction, job stressors, positive and negative job attributes. Patient measures; percentage positive responses per practice on survey questions on access and consultation quality. GPs in high deprivation areas reported lower job satisfaction and positive job attributes, and higher job stressors and negative job attributes compared with GPs in low deprivation areas. Patients living in high deprivation areas reported lower satisfaction with access and consultation quality than patients in low deprivation areas. These differences in GP and patient satisfaction persisted after adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Lower GP work satisfaction in deprived areas was mirrored by lower patient satisfaction. These findings add to the evidence that the inverse care law persists in Scotland, over 50 years after it was first described.

Evaluating primary care transformation: synthesis of findings from UK pilot project reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pilot 'new models' of primary care have been funded across the UK since 2015, through various national transformation funds. Reflections and syntheses of evaluation findings provide an additional layer of insight into 'what works' in transforming primary care. AIM: To identify good practice in policy design, implementation, and evaluation for primary care transformation. DESIGN & SETTING: A thematic analysis of existing pilot evaluations in England, Wales, and Scotland. METHOD: Ten studies presenting evaluations of three national pilot studies - the Vanguard programme in England, the Pacesetter programme in Wales, and the National Evaluation of New Models of Primary Care in Scotland - were thematically analysed, and findings synthesised in order to identify lessons learnt and good practice. RESULTS: Common themes emerged across studies in all three countries at project and policy level, which can support or inhibit new models of care. At project level, these included the following: working with all stakeholders, including communities and front-line staff; providing the time, space, and support necessary for the project to succeed; agreeing on clear objectives from the outset; and support for data collection, evaluation, and shared learning. At policy level, more fundamental challenges related to the parameters for pilot projects, in particular, the typically short-term nature of funding, with an expectation of results within 2-3 years. Changing expectations about outcome measures or project guidance part-way through project implementation was also identified as a key challenge. CONCLUSION: Primary care transformation requires coproduction and a rich, contextual understanding of local needs and complexities. However, a mismatch between policy objectives (care redesign to better meet patient needs) and policy parameters (short timeframes) is often a significant challenge to success.

Challenges in implementing GP clusters in Scotland: a qualitative study comparing the views of senior primary care stakeholders in 2016 with those in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Formation of GP clusters began in Scotland in April 2016 as part of a new Scottish GP contract. They aim to improve the care quality for local populations (intrinsic role) and the integration of health and social care (extrinsic role). AIM: To compare predicted challenges of cluster implementation in 2016 with reported challenges in 2021. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study of senior national stakeholders in primary care in Scotland. METHOD: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 senior primary care national stakeholders in 2016 (n = 6) and 2021 (n = 6). RESULTS: Predicted challenges in 2016 included balancing intrinsic and extrinsic roles, providing sufficient support, maintaining motivation and direction, and avoiding variation between clusters. Progress of clusters in 2021 was perceived as suboptimal and was reported to vary significantly across the country, reflecting differences in local infrastructure. Practical facilitation (data, administrative support, training, project improvement support, and funded time) and strategic guidance from the Scottish Government was felt to be lacking. GP engagement with clusters was felt to be hindered by the significant time and workforce pressures facing primary care. These barriers were considered as collectively contributing to cluster lead 'burnout' and loss of momentum, exacerbated by inadequate opportunities for shared learning between clusters across Scotland. Such barriers preceded, but were perpetuated by, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Apart from the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the challenges reported by stakeholders in 2021 were predicted in 2016. Accelerating progress in cluster working will require renewed investment and support applied consistently across the country.

Excessive polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in 147 care homes: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Care home residents often have multiple cognitive and physical impairments, and are at high risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). AIM: To describe excessive polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing predisposing care home residents to ADEs. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of all dispensed prescriptions for 147 care home residents in Tayside and Fife, Scotland. METHOD: Prevalence of excessive polypharmacy was examined using multilevel logistic regression, by modelling associations between individual and care home predictors with excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs). Prescribing of drugs known to increase the risk of eight clinically important ADE categories was examined. Drugs prescribed within each ADE category, for each resident, were counted. RESULTS: In total, 32.3% (n = 1444/4468) of residents had excessive polypharmacy, which was more common in residents aged 70-74 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 3.34) and 80-84 years (aOR 1.75, 95% CI = 1.01 to 3.02), living in a residential care home (aOR 1.50, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.88), and located in Fife (aOR 1.37, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.71). Excessive polypharmacy was less common in residents with dementia (aOR 0.73, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.84), and 8.9% (95% CI = 5.9% to 11.6%) of the variation was attributable to care home predictors. Potentially inappropriate prescribing of ≥2 drugs was seen across all ADE categories, with highest prevalence seen in drugs predisposing to constipation (35.8%), sedation (27.7%), and renal injury (18.0%). CONCLUSION: Excessive polypharmacy is common in care home residents and is associated with both individual and care home predictors. Potentially inappropriate prescribing of drugs that predisposed residents to all included ADE categories is common. Research is needed to support and evaluate safe care home prescribing practices.