Extending the scope of practice for experienced assistant practitioners in breast screening and the impact on service resilience.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) required Assistant Practitioners (APs), who are non-registered practitioners, to be supervised by and work alongside a registered radiographer (RPs). Following a national pilot looking at the implementation of two APs working remotely without direct supervision by a radiographer, this study seeks to evaluate a local trial of this new model of working. METHODS: Pairs of APs were deployed to work together on a mobile breast screening unit over a four-month period. Assessments were carried out to review technical performance using established NHSBSP technical repeat and recall rates in the United Kingdom. Notes on any queries from those involved during the dual AP sessions were prospectively collected and reviewed. Feedback from APs and other multi-disciplinary team members were collected and content analysis was applied. RESULTS: A total of 828 women were screened across the 26 AP clinics that were delivered. Technical repeat and recall rates of participating APs remained stable throughout the pilot period and marginally improved across all participating staff. No women attended the AP clinic who could not be screened and no support from a RP was required during the sessions. Seven normal clinics were converted to AP clinics due to lack of staff on the day, avoiding the cancellation of screening clinics. Feedback from across the screening team was positive. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the autonomy of experienced APs can significantly contribute to the delivery of a resilient radiographic workforce that maintains service performance. Suitable experience and wider team involvement appear to be keys to success in this case. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Increasing the autonomy and voice of the APs has a positive effect on the resilience of the wider radiographic workforce and the service as a whole. It also can provide a mechanism for raising their profile with a possible raise in job satisfaction, staff engagement and retention.

Population mobility: characteristics of people registering with general practices.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of patients joining general practitioners' (GP) lists, and the time taken to register after a move of residence. STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire study. METHODS: Staff in six London general practices administered the questionnaire to 642 newly registering adults. RESULTS: Nearly 40% of participants took longer than 6 months to re-register with a GP after a change of address. About one in eight participants (13%) took longer than 1 year and one in 14 (7%) took longer than 3 years to register. The overall median time to register after a move was 4 months. The amount of time taken to register appeared to be influenced by a number of factors, including gender, age and geographical location. CONCLUSIONS: Population mobility and the time taken to register with a new GP is likely to have a major impact on access to health care and the effectiveness of local preventative health programmes. Primary care trusts need to encourage their local residents to register with a GP soon after a change of address, and develop initiatives to encourage participation in preventative health programmes amongst mobile groups. Additional measures to strengthen primary care provision, such as walk-in centres, may be required in areas with the highest levels of population turnover.