Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how South Asian patients conceptualise the notion of clinical trials and to identify key processes that impact on trial participation and the extent to which communication difficulties, perceptions of risk and attitudes to authority influence these decisions. Also to identify whether 'South Asian' patients are homogeneous in these issues, and which factors differ between different South Asian subgroups and finally how professionals regard the involvement of South Asian patients and their views on strategies to increase participation. DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature on minority ethnic participation in clinical trials was followed by three qualitative interview studies. Interviews were taped and transcribed (and translated if required) and subjected to framework analysis. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 25 health professionals; 60 South Asian lay people who had not taken part in a trial and 15 South Asian trial participants. RESULTS: Motivations for trial participation were identified as follows: to help society, to improve own health or that of family and friends, out of obligation to the doctor and to increase scientific knowledge. Deterrents were concerns about drug side-effects, busy lifestyles, language, previous bad experiences, mistrust and feelings of not belonging to British society. There was no evidence of antipathy amongst South Asians to the concept of clinical trials and, overall, the younger respondents were more knowledgeable than the older ones. Problems are more likely to be associated with service delivery. Lack of being approached was a common response. Lay-reported factors that might affect South Asian participation in clinical trials include age, language, social class, feeling of not belonging/mistrust, culture and religion. Awareness of clinical trials varied between each group. There are more similarities than differences in attitudes towards clinical trial participation between the South Asian and the general population. Important decisions, such as participation in clinical trials, are likely to be made by those family members who are fluent in English and younger. Social class appears to be more important than ethnicity, and older South Asian people and those from working class backgrounds appear to be more mistrustful. Approachable patients (of the same gender, social class and fluent in English) tend to be 'cherry picked' to clinical trials. This practice was justified because of a lack of time and resources and inadequate support. South Asian patients might be systematically excluded from trials owing to the increased cost and time associated with their inclusion, particularly in relation to the language barrier. Under-representation might also be due to passive exclusion associated with cultural stereotypes. Other characteristics such as gender, age, educational level and social class can also affect trial inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Effective strategies for South Asian recruitment to clinical trials include: using multi-recruitment strategies; defining the demographic and social profiles of the population to be included; using focus groups to identify any potential barriers; consulting representative community members to provide assistance in the study; ensuring eligibility criteria are set as wide as possible; developing educational and recruitment approaches to attract ethnic minority health professionals; ensuring health professionals are adequately trained in culturally and ethnically orientated service provision; determining the most effective mass media to use in study promotion and recruitment; and targeting inner-city, single-handed practices likely to have high ethnic minority populations. Future research should consider: responses when invited to participate; the role of methodological and organisational barriers to recruitment; the complexities of recruitment from a health professional perspective; developing culturally sensitive research methods; the magnitude of the problem of under-recruitment; strategies to encourage inner-city, single-handed GP participation; and other factors affecting trial inclusion, such as age, gender, educational level and socio-cultural background.

Measuring the success of primary care organizations: is it possible?

Primary care in the UK has been the subject of numerous changes and reorganizations since 1990. Each innovation in organization, with the exception of fundholding, has been the subject of evaluation. However, the complexities of some innovations make the evaluation process problematic and this is further complicated by the trend towards central policy decision making being subject to local interpretation and implementation, by means of simultaneous devolution and centralization. This paper discusses the challenges and problems posed by attempting to evaluate these new organizations, particularly with regard to whether or not they can be considered to be "successful". It draws specifically on the national evaluation of the total purchasing pilots and indicates how the findings can be applied to primary care groups.

A profile of PMS salaried GP contracts and their impact on recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Personal medical services (PMS) pilot sites aim to use salaried GP schemes to improve GP recruitment and retention and enhance the quality of service provision, particularly in underserved areas. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (i) compare the work incentives of salaried compared with standard GP contracts; (ii) assess recruitment success to salaried posts; and (iii) describe the types of GPs attracted to these new posts. METHOD: All first wave PMS pilot sites with salaried GP posts known to be 'live' in October 1998 were included in the analysis of employment contracts and job descriptions. Information on recruitment was obtained by a questionnaire survey of PMS sites that were intending to recruit a salaried GP. RESULTS: The mean full-time equivalent salary was 43,674 pounds sterling with additional benefits in terms of sick leave, maternity leave and paid expenses. Eighty-nine percent of posts were eligible for the NHS pension scheme. Posts were mainly full time (40.8 hours per week). GPs were responsible for providing services equivalent in scope to general medical services. One-fifth of contracts freed GPs from out-of-hours responsibility and most freed them from practice management. Forty-three of the pilot sites actively recruited to fill 63 salaried posts, which involved a total of 51 recruitment 'rounds', with some pilots advertising more than once. There were 291 applications. The median number of applicants per post was three and the median time to recruitment was 6 weeks. Eighty-five percent of sites were satisfied with the quality of their applicants and 64% with the quantity. Eighty-five percent of applicants previously had been working in general practice, most in locum or salaried posts. Applicants tended to be young and male. Sixty posts were filled. CONCLUSIONS: Salaried contracts offer positive incentives to recruitment in terms of reduced hours of work and freedom from administrative responsibility. Recruitment success was similar to that achieved by inner city practices generally. This modest achievement might be enhanced by the addition of professional development schemes and increased flexible/part-time working.

Primary care. Lock, stock-take and barrel.

An analysis of primary care groups' investment plans revealed their main concerns were premises, IT and workforce issues. About a quarter of plans did not address out-of-hours care or community nursing. The plans lacked detail of the process guiding resource allocation. The plans showed little indication of services being organised around the priorities of the local health improvement programme.

Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the impact of payment systems on the behaviour of primary care physicians. METHODS: All randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared capitation, salary, fee-for-service or target payments (mixed or separately) that were identified by computerised searches of the literature. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken independently by two reviewers using a data checklist. Study results were qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation in the quality of reporting, study setting and the range of outcomes measured. Fee-for-service resulted in a higher quantity of primary care services provided compared with capitation but the evidence of the impact on the quantity of secondary care services was mixed. Fee-for-service resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but lower patient satisfaction with access to a physician compared with salary payment. The evidence of the impact of target payment on immunisation rates was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that how a primary care physician is paid does affect his/her behaviour but the generalisability of these studies is unknown. Most policy changes in the area of payment systems are inadequately informed by research. Future changes to doctor payment systems need to be rigorously evaluated.

First wave PMS pilots: a critical analysis of documentation.

Contracts and interim local evaluation reports for the 14 first wave PMS pilots in Northern and Yorkshire region were analysed by documentary analysis. Both contracts and reports were found to vary considerably in size and scope. Most contracts contained aims and objectives that were too broad or vague to guide project management and they lacked useful milestones. This made it difficult to identify criteria for measuring success. The local evaluation reports were also of variable quality. It is recommended that contracts should be accompanied by a development plan containing specific objectives, timescale and process for implementation as well as an evaluation strategy. The relative importance of different targets should be agreed and specified at the outset, to allow weighting of partial success, where some objectives, but not others, are achieved. Project milestones would be made explicit and measurable in the development plan. More clarity in contracts and evaluation for future pilots is essential.

Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The method by which physicians are paid may affect their professional practice. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. improving quality of care, cost containment and recruitment to under-served areas), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Target payments are a payment system which remunerate professionals only if they provide a minimum level of care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of target payments on the professional practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) and health care outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of target payments to primary care professionals with alternative methods of payment, on patient outcomes, health services utilisation, health care costs, equity of care, and PCP satisfaction with working environment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were included involving 149 practices. The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from the studies identified in this review is not of sufficient quality or power to obtain a clear answer to the question as to whether target payment remuneration provides a method of improving primary health care. Additional efforts should be directed in evaluating changes in physicians' remuneration systems. Although it would not be difficult to design a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of such payment systems, it would be difficult politically to conduct such trials.

Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that the method of payment of physicians may affect their clinical behaviour. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. cost containment or improved quality of care), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of different methods of payment (capitation, salary, fee for service and mixed systems of payment) on the clinical behaviour of primary care physicians (PCPs). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of capitation, salary, fee for service (FFS) and mixed systems of payment on primary care physician satisfaction with working environment; cost and quantity of care; type and pattern of care; equity of care; and patient health status and satisfaction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies were included involving 640 primary care physicians and more than 6400 patients. There was considerable variation in study setting and the range of outcomes measured. FFS resulted in more primary care visits/contacts, visits to specialists and diagnostic and curative services but fewer hospital referrals and repeat prescriptions compared with capitation. Compliance with a recommended number of visits was higher under FFS compared with capitation payment. FFS resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but patients were less satisfied with access to their physician compared with salaried payment. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is noteworthy that so few studies met the inclusion criteria. There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown. More evaluations of the effect of payment systems on PCP behaviour are needed, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.

Randomised controlled trial comparing cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of general practitioners and nurse practitioners as first point of contact in primary care. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial of patients requesting an appointment the same day. SETTING: 20 general practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 1716 patients were eligible for randomisation, of whom 1316 agreed to randomisation and 1303 subsequently attended the clinic. Data were available for analysis on 1292 patients (651 general practitioner consultations and 641 nurse practitioner consultations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consultation process (length of consultation, examinations, prescriptions, referrals), patient satisfaction, health status, return clinic visits over two weeks, and costs. RESULTS: Nurse practitioner consultations were significantly longer than those of the general practitioners (11.57 v 7.28 min; adjusted difference 4. 20, 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.41), and nurses carried out more tests (8.7% v 5.6% of patients; odds ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.66) and asked patients to return more often (37. 2% v 24.8%; 1.93, 1.36 to 2.73). There was no significant difference in patterns of prescribing or health status outcome for the two groups. Patients were more satisfied with nurse practitioner consultations (mean score 4.40 v 4.24 for general practitioners; adjusted difference 0.18, 0.092 to 0.257). This difference remained after consultation length was controlled for. There was no significant difference in health service costs (nurse practitioner 18.ll pound sterling v general practitioner 20.70 pound sterling adjusted difference 2.33 pound sterling - 1.62 pound sterling to 6.28 pound sterling). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical care an health service costs of nurse practitioners and general practitioners were similar. If nurse practitioners were able to maintain the benefits while reducing their return consultation rate or shortening consultation times, they could be more cost effective than general practitioners.

The information requirements of total purchasing projects. Implications for primary care groups.

To successfully purchase, commission and manage health services at the primary care level requires accurate, reliable, up-to-date and appropriate information for use by trusts, health authorities, and by the soon to be operational primary care groups. The national total purchasing evaluation has provided evidence which will be relevant to primary care groups, particularly in the areas of information technology (IT) and access to information. Progress in developing independent purchasing by total purchasers was slower than anticipated because of the large number of factors which had to be taken into account, of which IT and information were just two. Accurate and timely information will be crucial for primary care groups if they are to move from level 1 to level 4 without undue delay.

Management and relationships in total purchasing pilots. Relevance for primary care groups.

Primary Care Groups (PCGs) represent a natural evolution of the various models--total purchasing, multifunds and locality commissioning--embraced by the term "primary care commissioning". They will involve large numbers of different professionals working together to commission improved health care for their populations. The total purchasing pilots (TPPs) were the subjects of an extensive evaluation which has highlighted the significance of developing and improving relationships between the key players as a prerequisite for the successful implementation of their strategy. Management arrangements were central to this success. Similar considerations will be of crucial importance for the PCGs which are considerably larger and more complex organisations than the TPPs.

Recruitment and retention of general practitioners in the UK: what are the problems and solutions?

Recruitment and retention of general practitioners (GPs) has become an issue of major concern in recent years. However, much of the evidence is anecdotal and some commentators continue to question the scale of workforce problems. Hence, there is a need to establish a clear picture of those instabilities (i.e. imbalances between demand and supply) that do exist in the GP labour market in the UK. Based on a review of the published literature, we identify problems that stem from: (i) the changing social composition of the workforce and the fact that a large proportion of qualified GPs are significantly underutilized within traditional career structures; and (ii) the considerable differences in the ability of local areas to match labour demand and supply. We argue that one way to address these problems would be to encourage greater flexibility in a number of areas highlighted in the literature: (i) time commitment across the working day and week; (ii) long-term career paths; (iii) training and education; and (iv) remuneration and contract conditions. Overall, although the evidence suggests that the predicted 'crisis' has not yet occurred in the GP labour market as a whole, there is no room for lack of imagination in planning terms. Workforce planners continue to emphasize national changes to the medical school intake as the means to balance labour demand and supply between the specialities; however, better retention and deployment of existing GP labour would arguably produce more effective supply-side solutions. In this context, current policy and practice developments (e.g. Primary Care Groups and Primary Care Act Pilot Sites) offer a unique learning base upon which to move forward.

General practitioner turnover and migration in England 1990-94.

BACKGROUND: In tandem with fears about a GP workforce crisis, increasing attention is being focused on the supply and distribution of primary care services: on general practitioners in particular. Differential turnover and migration across health authority boundaries could lead to a maldistribution of GPs, yet comprehensive studies of GP turnover are non-existent. AIM: To quantify general practitioner (GP) turnover and migration in England from 1990 to 1994. METHOD: Yearly data from 1 October 1990 to 1 October 1994 were collected on GPs in England practising full time, including average yearly turnover, rates of entry to and exit from general practice, and net migration among GPs. All were calculated at the family health service authority (now the new health authorities) level. RESULTS: Average yearly GP turnover ranges from 2.9% in Shropshire to 7.8% in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster; turnover is associated with deprivation and high-need areas. Migration of GPs across health authority borders was rare. Entry and exit rates were also positively related to measures of deprivation and need. Relatively underprovided health authorities lost 23 GPs over the study period as a result of migration; relatively overprovided ones gained three. CONCLUSION: Turnover is driven primarily by exits from general practice and is related to deprivation and high need. Retention appears to be the main problem in ensuring an adequate GP supply in relatively deprived and underprovided health authorities.

Cost-effectiveness of a new treatment for somatized mental disorder taught to GPs.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mental disorder presenting with medically unexplained symptoms (somatized mental disorder) are difficult to treat and consume a lot of health care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of a training package for somatized mental disorder delivered by GPs. METHODS: The study design was a prospective, before- and after-training study of different cohorts of patients attending eight GPs, acting as their own controls. Cost-effectiveness analysis was estimated using changes in case level on a self-rated psychiatric symptom questionnaire (GHQ-12) and direct health costs between the index consultation and 3 months later. RESULTS: There were 103 and 112 patients with somatized mental disorder in the before and after training cohorts, respectively. After training, costs of referrals outside the primary care team decreased significantly by 23%, with little overall change in primary care costs. Total direct health care costs, including training, were reduced by 15%. After training, an extra 17 patients were successfully treated (no longer GHQ-12 cases) at 3 months. The marginal cost-effectiveness per extra successfully treated patient was pound sterling 325 and the cost per successfully treated case was 69% of the cost of the GP's usual treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Training GPs with the reattribution training package appears to be extremely cost-effective.

Specialist outreach clinics in general practice: what do they offer?

BACKGROUND: Specialist outreach clinics in general practice, in which hospital-based specialists hold outpatient clinics in general practitioners' (GPs) surgeries, are one example of a shift in services from secondary to primary care. AIM: To describe specialist outreach clinics held in fundholding general practices in two specialties from the perspective of patients, GPs, and consultants, and to estimate the comparative costs of these outreach clinics and equivalent hospital outpatient clinics. METHOD: Data were collected from single outreach sessions in fundholding practices and single outpatient clinics held by three dermatologists and three orthopaedic surgeons. Patients attending the outreach and outpatient clinics, GPs from practices in which the outreach clinics were held, and the consultants all completed questionnaires. Managers in general practice and hospital finance departments supplied data for the estimation of costs. RESULTS: Initial patient questionnaires were completed by 83 (86%) outreach patients and 81 (75%) outpatients. The specialist outreach clinics sampled provided few opportunities for increased interaction between specialists and GPs. Specialists were concerned about the travelling time resulting from their involvement in outreach clinics. Waiting times for first appointments were shorter in some outreach clinics than in outpatient clinics. However, patients were less concerned about the location of their consultation with the specialist than they were about the interpersonal aspects of the consultation. There was some evidence of a difference in casemix between the dermatology patients seen at outreach and those seen at outpatient clinics, which confounded the comparison of total costs associated with the two types of clinic. However, when treatment and overhead costs were excluded, the marginal cost per patient was greater in outreach clinics than in hospital clinics for both specialties studied. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that a cautious approach should be taken to further development of outreach clinics in the two specialties studied because the benefits of outreach clinics to patients, GPs and consultants may be modest, and their higher cost means that they are unlikely to be cost-effective.

Partnership changes in English general practice from 1990 to 1994.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to quantify the rate of partnership change among general practitioners (GPs) in the National Health Service (NHS) in England from 1990 to 1994. METHODS: Time series data on English GPs were analysed on 1 October for the years 1990-1994. The main outcome measures include: (1) proportion of GPs practising in an unchanged partnership from 1 October 1990 to 1 October 1994; (2) proportion of partnerships that were unchanged over the study period; (3) the average yearly rate of partnership changes for England and per Family Health Service Authority (FHSA), calculated using both the individual GP and the practice as the unit of analysis. RESULTS: A total of 6532 (27.1 per cent) of the 24,107 unrestricted GPs practising full time on 1 October 1990 were still practising in the identical partnership on 1 October 1994; 3539 (35.7 per cent) of the 9918 practices in England were unchanged over the same period. The average yearly partnership change rate for all England was 23.1 per cent when calculated using the individual GP as the unit of analysis, and 23.4 per cent when calculated using the practice as the unit of analysis. There is threefold variation found in the average yearly partnership change rate by FHSA, with similar rank ordering of health authorities when using either the individual GP or practice as unit of analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in partnerships are commonplace. The possible influence of such changes on primary care in the NHS should be further investigated.

Primary care. Burden of proof.

Evidence that the shift of services from secondary to primary care is creating extra work for GPs is limited. A study showed that it is possible to quantify additional workload for GPs, but that certain aspects, such as measuring the time input, remain problematic. Future research needs to agree workload definitions, employ sensitive measures other than consultation rates, and distinguish between workload in practices and that of individual practitioners.