What remains after the money ends? Evidence on whether admission reductions continued following the largest health and social care integration programme in England.

We study the long-term effects on hospital activity of a three-year national integration programme. We use administrative data spanning from 24 months before to 22 months after the programme, to estimate the effect of programme discontinuation using difference-in-differences method. Our results show that after programme discontinuation, emergency admissions were slower to increase in Vanguard compared to non-Vanguard sites. These effects were heterogeneous across sites, with greater reductions in care home Vanguard sites and concentrated among the older population. Care home Vanguards showed significant reductions beginning early in the programme but falling away more rapidly after programme discontinuation. Moreover, there were greater reductions for sites performing poorly before the programme. Overall, this suggests the effects of the integration programme might have been lagged but transitory, and more reliant on continued programme support.

Factors affecting the experience of joined-up, continuous primary care in the absence of relational continuity: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: There is an international trend towards the at-scale provision of primary care services, with such services often provided in different settings by a clinician unfamiliar to the patient. It is often assumed that, in the absence of relational continuity, any competent clinician can deliver joined-up, continuous care if they have access to clinical notes. AIM: To explore the factors that affect the potential for providing joined-up, continuous care in a system where care is delivered away from a patient's regular practice, by a different organisation and set of staff. DESIGN AND SETTING: Case studies of two extended-access providers in the north of England. METHOD: Case studies were carried out between September 2021 and January 2022 in two sites. Data collected included observations of patient-healthcare professional interactions, interviews with staff and patients, and documentation. Analysis took place using a constant comparison approach. Data were coded. A model of the factors affecting continuity was constructed. RESULTS: The potential for joined-up, continuous care appears dependent on staff, patient, and system factors. This includes diverse elements such as the attitude of clinicians to care coordination and the ability of an organisation to retain staff. CONCLUSION: Healthcare systems increasingly rely on the assumption that any competent clinician can deliver joined-up, continuous care if they have access to clinical notes. This appears not to be the case. This study presents a model of factors affecting the patient's experience of continuity. The model needs validating in in-hours general practice and other settings.

Trends in full-time working in general practice: repeated cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence and no agreement on what constitutes full-time working for general practitioners (GPs). This is essential for workforce planning, resource allocation and accurately describing GP activity. AIM: To clarify the definition of full-time working for general practitioners, how this has changed over time and whether these changes are explained by GP demographics. DESIGN AND SETTING: Repeated cross-sectional national surveys between 2010 and 2021. METHOD: Comparison of three measures of working time commitments (hours and sessions per week and hours per session) plus a measure of workload intensity across survey years. Multiple regression to adjust the changes over time for age, sex, ethnicity, contract type, area deprivation, and rurality. Unadjusted hours and sessions per week were compared to definitions of full-time working. RESULTS: Average hours and sessions per week reduced from 40.5 (95% CI: 38.5, 42.5) to 38.0 (36.3, 39.6) and 7.3 (7.2, 7.3) to 6.2 (6.2, 6.3) respectively between 2010 and 2021. In 2021, 54.6% of GPs worked at least 37.5 hours per week and 9.5% worked at least 9 sessions. Hours per session increased from 5.7 (5.7, 5.7) to 6.2 (6.2, 6.3) between 2010 and 2021. Partners worked more hours, sessions and hours per session. Adjustments increased the increase in hours per session from 0.54 to 0.61. CONCLUSION: At the current average duration of sessions, six sessions per week aligns with the NHS definition of full-time hours. However, hours per week is a more consistent way to define full-time work for GPs.

Has the NHS national extended access scheme delivered its policy aims? A case study of two large scale extended access providers.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, NHS England mandated that all patients in England should be able to access general practice services outside of ordinary hours. While some patients would access additional hours at their own practice, others would need supra-practice level provision - that is, they would be seen in a different location and by a different care team. The policy aim was to enhance patient access to care, with a particular focus on those who work during the day. This study examines (a) how supra-practice level provision of extended access appointments for general medical problems are operationalised and (b) whether the aims of the policy are being met. METHODS: This study presents qualitative comparative case studies of two contrasting service providers offering extended access. The data collected included 30 hours of clinician-patient observations, 25 interviews with staff, managers, and commissioners, 20 interviews with patients, organisational protocols/documentation, and routinely collected appointment data. Thematic analysis ran concurrently with data gathering and facilitated the iterative adaptation of data collection. RESULTS: Three cross-cutting themes were identified: extended access is being used to bolster a struggling primary care system, extended access provides a different service to in-hours general practice, and it is difficult for extended access to provide seamless care. CONCLUSIONS: Supra-practice access models can provide effective care for most patients with straightforward issues. When ongoing management of complex problems is required, this model of patient care can be problematic.

Evaluating primary care networks in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care networks (PCNs) are claimed to be an effective model to organise and deliver primary healthcare through collaborative relationships and effective coordination of primary care activities. Though increasingly implemented in different contexts, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of PCNs in low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs). OBJECTIVE: Our scoping review aims to understand how PCNs in LLMICs have been conceptualised, implemented and analysed in the literature and further explores the evidence of the effectiveness of these networks. METHODS: We structured our review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews and recommendations by Levac et al. We also used the population, concept and context (PCC) guide of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews to define the search strategy. The identified documents were then mapped, using Cunningham's evaluation framework for health networks, to understand how PCNs are conceived in LLMIC settings. RESULTS: We identified 20 documents describing PCNs in five LLMICs. The selected documents showed differing forms and complexities of networks, with a majority resourced by government, non-governmental and donor entities. Most networks were mandated, and established with defined goals, although these were not always understood by stakeholders. Unlike PCNs in developed settings, the scoping review did not identify integration of care as a major goal for the establishment of PCNs in LLMICs. Network evaluation relationships, outputs and outcomes also varied across the five networks in the identified documents, and perceptions of effectiveness differed across stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: PCNs in LLMICs benefit from clearly stated goals and measurable outcomes, which facilitates evaluation. In order to maximise the benefits, careful attention to the aspects of network design and operation is required. Future research work could shed light on some of the missing pieces of evidence on their effectiveness by, for example, considering differential consequences of modes of network establishment and operation, including unintended consequences in the systems within which they reside, and evaluating long-term implications.

Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey.

BACKGROUND: It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. METHODS: Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. RESULTS: Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.

Predictors and population health outcomes of persistent high GP turnover in English general practices: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: English primary care faces significant challenges, including 'persistent high turnover' of general practitioners (GPs) in some partnerships. It is unknown whether there are specific predictors of persistent high turnover and whether it is associated with poorer population health outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. METHODS: We linked workforce data on individual GPs to practice-level data from Hospital Episode Statistics and the GP Patient Survey (2007-2019). We classified practices as experiencing persistent high turnover if more than 10% of GPs changed in at least 3 consecutive years. We used multivariable logistic or linear regression models for panel data with random effects to identify practice characteristics that predicted persistent high turnover and associations of practice outcomes (higher emergency hospital use and patient experience of continuity of care, access to care and overall patient satisfaction) with persistent high turnover. RESULTS: Each year, 6% of English practices experienced persistent high turnover, with a maximum of 9% (688/7619) in 2014. Larger practices, in more deprived areas and with a higher morbidity burden were more likely to experience persistent high turnover. Persistent high turnover was associated with 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1) more emergency hospital attendances per 100 patients, 0.1 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) more admissions per 100 patients, 5.2% (95% CI -5.6% to -4.9%) fewer people seeing their preferred doctor, 10.6% (95% CI-11.4% to -9.8%) fewer people reporting obtaining an appointment on the same day and 1.3% (95% CI -1.6% to -1.1%) lower overall satisfaction with the practice. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent high turnover is independently linked to indicators of poorer service and health outcomes. Although causality needs to be further investigated, strategies and policies may be needed to both reduce high turnover and support practices facing challenges with high GP turnover when it occurs.

General practice managers' motivations for skill mix change in primary care: Results from a cross-sectional survey in England.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to determine the factors that motivated GP practice managers in England to employ non-medical roles, and to identify an ideal hypothetical GP practice workforce. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of GP practice managers in England (n = 1205). The survey focused on six non-medical roles: advanced nurse practitioner, specialist nurse, health care assistant, physician associate, paramedic and pharmacist. RESULTS: The three most commonly selected motivating factors were: (i) to achieve a better match between what patients need and what the practitioner team can deliver; (ii) to increase overall appointment availability and (iii) to release GP time. Employment of pharmacists and physician associates was most commonly supported by additional funding. Practice managers preferred accessing new non-medical roles through a primary care network or similar, while there was a clear preference for direct employment of additional GPs, advanced nurse practitioners or practice nurses. The ideal practice workforce would comprise over 70% of GPs and nurses, containing, on average, fewer GPs than the current GP practice workforce. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that more diverse teams of practitioners are playing an increasing role in providing primary care in England. Managers prefer not to employ all new roles directly within the practice. A more detailed investigation of future workforce requirements is necessary to ensure that health policy supports the funding (whether practice or population based), recruitment, training, deployment and workloads associated with the mix of roles needed in an effective primary care workforce.

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.

Processes supporting effective skill-mix implementation in general practice: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Health policy and funding initiatives have addressed increasing workloads in general practice through the deployment of clinicians from different disciplinary backgrounds. This study examines how general practices in England operate with increasingly diverse groups of practitioners. METHODS: Five general practices were selected for maximum variation of the duration and diversity of skill-mix in their workforce. Individual interviews were recorded with management and administrative staff and different types of practitioner. Patient surveys and focus groups gathered patients' perspectives of consulting with different practitioners. Researchers collaborated during coding and thematic analysis of transcripts of audio recordings. RESULTS: The introduction of a wide range of practitioners required significant changes in how practices dealt with patients requesting treatment, and these changes were not necessarily straightforward. The matching of patients with practitioners required effective categorization of health care patients' reported problem(s) and an understanding of practitioners' capabilities. We identified individual and organizational responses that could minimize the impact on patients, practitioners and practices of imperfections in the matching process. CONCLUSIONS: The processes underpinning the redistribution of tasks from GPs to non-GP practitioners are complex. As practitioner employment under the Primary Care Network contracts continues to increase, it is not clear how the necessarily fine-grained adjustments will be made for practitioners working across multiple practices.

Unseen patterns of preventable emergency care: Emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are often used to measure potentially preventable emergency care. Visits to emergency departments with ACSCs may also be preventable care but are excluded from such measures if patients are not admitted. We established the extent and composition of this preventable emergency care. METHODS: We analysed 1,505,979 emergency department visits (5% of the national total) between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017 at six hospital Trusts in England, using International Classification of Diseases diagnostic coding. We calculated the number of visits for each ACSC and examined the proportions of these visits that did not result in admission by condition and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 11.1% of emergency department visits were for ACSCs. 55.0% of these visits did not result in hospital admission. Whilst the majority of ACSC visits were for acute rather than chronic conditions (59.4% versus 38.4%), acute visits were much more likely to conclude without admission (70.3% versus 33.4%). Younger, more deprived and ethnic minority patients were less likely to be admitted when they visited the emergency department with an ACSC. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of preventable emergency care is not captured by measures of admissions. The probability of admission at a preventable visit varies substantially between conditions and patient groups. Focussing only on admissions for ACSCs provides an incomplete and skewed picture of the types of conditions and patients receiving preventable care. Measures of preventable emergency care should include visits in addition to admissions.

Comparison of the impact of two national health and social care integration programmes on emergency hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers expect that integration of health and social care will improve user and carer experience and reduce avoidable hospital use. [We] evaluate the impact on emergency hospital admissions of two large nationally-initiated service integration programmes in England: the Pioneer (November 2013 to March 2018) and Vanguard (January 2015 to March 2018) programmes. The latter had far greater financial and expert support from central agencies. METHODS: Of the 206 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, 51(25%) were involved in the Pioneer programme only, 22(11%) were involved in the Vanguard programme only and 13(6%) were involved in both programmes. We used quasi-experimental methods to compare monthly counts of emergency admissions between four groups of CCGs, before and after the introduction of the two programmes. RESULTS: CCGs involved in the programmes had higher monthly hospital emergency admission rates than non-participants prior to their introduction [7.9 (95% CI:7.8-8.1) versus 7.5 (CI: 7.4-7.6) per 1000 population]. From 2013 to 2018, there was a 12% (95% CI:9.5-13.6%) increase in emergency admissions in CCGs not involved in either programme while emergency admissions in CCGs in the Pioneer and Vanguard programmes increased by 6.4% (95% CI: 3.8-9.0%) and 8.8% (95% CI:4.5-13.1%), respectively. CCGs involved in both initiatives experienced a smaller increase of 3.5% (95% CI:-0.3-7.2%). The slowdown largely occurred in the final year of both programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Health and social care integration programmes can mitigate but not prevent rises in emergency admissions over the longer-term. Greater financial and expert support from national agencies and involvement in multiple integration initiatives can have cumulative effects.

Clarifying the concept of avoidable emergency department attendance.

Emergency department attendances are rising in several countries. Many of the policies aimed at reducing emergency department attendances are based on the assumption that a proportion of current utilization is 'avoidable' and therefore could be reduced. In considering how to achieve this aim, it is important to first understand the problem. In this essay, we review the literature on the concept and identification of avoidable emergency department attendances in England. We identified three areas of inconsistency surrounding avoidable emergency department attendances: the terminology, the underlying definition, and the method used to identify avoidable attendances. We offer a more nuanced definition which may better support action to reduce emergency department activity. Recognizing that there are different types of undesirable utilization which vary by underlying causes and potential solutions will aid policy makers in identifying areas where policies targeting reductions in emergency department attendances would best be directed.

Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice: observational study using data from the UK GP Patient Survey.

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. DESIGN AND SETTING: This observational study in English general practice used data on patient experience, practice size, and collaborative working. Data were drawn from the English GP Patient Survey, NHS Digital, and from a previous study. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: Practices that had grown in population size had a greater fall in continuity of care (by 6.6%, 95% confidence interval = 4.3% to 8.9%), than practices that had roughly stayed the same size, after controlling for other factors. Differences in falls in access to care were smaller (4.3% difference for being able to get through easily on the telephone; 1.5% for being able to get an appointment; 0.9% in satisfaction with opening hours), but were statistically significant. Practices collaborating closely with others had marginally worse continuity of care than those not working in collaboration, and no differences in access. CONCLUSION: Larger general practice size in England may be associated with slightly poorer continuity of care and may not improve patient access. Close collaborative working did not have any demonstrable effect on patient experience.

Variability in size and characteristics of primary care networks in England: observational study.

BACKGROUND: General practices in England have been encouraged by national policy to work together on a larger scale by creating primary care networks (PCNs). Policy guidance recommended that they should serve populations of 30 000-50 000 people to perform effectively. AIM: To describe variation in the size and characteristics of PCNs and their populations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis in England. METHOD: Using published information from January 2020, PCNs were identified that contained <30 000, between 30 000-50 000, and >50 000 people. Percentiles were calculated to describe variation in size and population characteristics. PCN composition within each commissioning region was also examined. RESULTS: In total, 6758 practices had formed 1250 PCNs. Seven hundred and twenty-six (58%) PCNs had the recommended population of 30 000-50 000 people. Eighty-four (7%) PCNs contained <30 000 people. Four hundred and forty (35%) PCNs contained >50 000 people. Thirty-four (3%) PCNs comprised just one practice and 77 (6%) PCNs contained >10 practices. Some PCNs contained more than double the proportions of older people and people with chronic conditions compared to other PCNs. More than half of the population were from very socioeconomically deprived areas in 172 (14%) PCNs. Only six (4%) of the 135 commissioning regions ensured all PCNs were in the recommended population range. All practices had joined a single PCN in three (2%) commissioning regions. CONCLUSION: More than 40% of the PCNs were not of the recommended size, and there was substantial variation in their composition and characteristics. This high variability between PCNs is a risk to their future performance.

New integrated care models in England associated with small reduction in hospital admissions in longer-term: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Closer integration of health and social care services has become a cornerstone policy in many developed countries, but there is still debate over what population and service level is best to target. In England, the 2019 Long Term Plan for the National Health Service included a commitment to spread the integration prototypes piloted under the Vanguard `New Care Models' programme. The programme, running from 2015 to 2018, was one of the largest pilots in English history, covering around 9 % of the population. It was largely intended to design prototypes aimed at reducing hospital utilisation by moving specialist care out of hospital into the community and by fostering coordination of health, care and rehabilitation services for (i) the whole population ('population-based sites'), or (ii) care home residents ('care home sites'). We evaluate and compare the efficacy of the population-based and care home site integrated care models in reducing hospital utilisation. We use area-level monthly counts of emergency admissions and bed-days obtained from administrative data using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design. We found that Vanguard sites had higher hospital utilisation than non-participants in the pre-intervention period. In the post-intervention period, there is clear evidence of a substantial increase in emergency admissions among non-Vanguard sites. The Vanguard integrated care programme slowed the rise in emergency admissions, especially in care home sites and in the third and final year. There was no significant reduction in bed-days. In conclusion, integrated care policies should not be relied upon to make large reductions in hospital activity in the short-run, especially for population-based models.

Trends in GP incomes in England, 2008-2017: a retrospective analysis of repeated postal surveys.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread concern over the recruitment and retention of GPs in England. Income is a fundamental consideration affecting the attractiveness of working in general practice. AIM: To report on trends in average incomes earned by GPs in England, adjusted for inflation and contracted time commitment. DESIGN AND SETTING: Postal surveys of random samples of GPs working in England in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2017. METHOD: Trends in average reported incomes of partner and salaried GPs were directly standardised for the reported number of sessions worked per week and adjusted for inflation. RESULTS: Data were obtained from between 1000 and 1300 responders each year, representing response rates between 25% and 44%. Almost all responders (96%) reported the income they earned from their job as a GP. Mean nominal annual income decreased by 1.1% from £99 437 in 2008 to £98 373 in 2017 for partner GPs and increased by 4.4% from £49 061 to £51 208 for salaried GPs. Mean sessions worked decreased from 7.7 to 7.0 per week for partner GPs and decreased from 5.6 to 5.3 per week for salaried GPs. Mean income adjusted for sessions worked and inflation decreased by 10.0% for partner GPs and by 7.0% for salaried GPs, between 2008 and 2017. CONCLUSION: The decrease in GP income adjusted for sessions worked and inflation over the last decade may have contributed to the current problems with recruitment and retention.

How widespread is working at scale in English general practice? An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 5 years, national policy has encouraged general practices to serve populations of >30 000 people (called 'working at scale') by collaborating with other practices. AIM: To describe the number of English general practices working at scale, and their patient populations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study of general practices in England. METHOD: Data published by the NHS on practices' self-reports of working in groups were supplemented with data from reports by various organisations and practice group websites. Practices were categorised by the extent to which they were working at scale; within these categories, the age distribution of the practice population, level of socioeconomic deprivation, rurality, and prevalence of longstanding illness were then examined. RESULTS: Approximately 55% of English practices (serving 33.5 million patients) were working at scale, individually or collectively serving populations of >30 000 people. Organisational models representing close collaboration for the purposes of core general practice services were identifiable for approximately 5% of practices; these comprised large practices, superpartnerships, and multisite organisations. Approximately 50% of practices were working in looser forms of collaboration, focusing on services beyond core general practice; for example, primary care in the evenings and at weekends. Data on organisational models and the purpose of the collaboration were very limited for this group. CONCLUSION: In early 2018, approximately 5% of general practices were working closely at scale; approximately half of practices were working more loosely at scale. However, data were incomplete. Better records of what is happening at practice level should be collected so that the effect of working at scale on patient care can be evaluated.