No abstract

Our findings indicate that high mobility and health need may be the underlying causes of over-registrations. The regional variation in over-registration, with London being an outlier, points towards potential inequalities in resourcing of primary care and the ability of the National Health Service to adequately match funding to population need.

Background The benefit of a “diagnosis” of pre-diabetes in very elderly patients is debated. How clinicians manage pre-diabetic blood results in these patients is unknown. This study aims to understand how clinicians are “diagnosing” older patients with pre-diabetic blood parameters. Methods Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with health care staff (24 total participants) were conducted in the north of England. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. A grounded theory approach was taken with the theory of candidacy being used as a sensitising concept through which questions were framed and results interpreted. Results There is a complex system of competing pressures that influence a clinician in deciding whether, and in what way, to inform a very elderly patient that they have pre-diabetes. The majority of clinicians adjust their management of pre-diabetes to the age and perceived risk/benefit for the patient. Whilst some clinicians choose not to inform certain patients of their blood results, many clinicians maintain, what could be seen as a somewhat paradoxical approach of labeling all older patients with pre-diabetes but downplaying the significance to the patient. The policy, organisational context, workload and professional constraints under which clinicians work, play a significant role in shaping how they deal with pre-diabetic blood results in the very elderly. Conclusion There has been recent acknowledgement of how policy and organisational context frames decision-making, but there is a lack of evidence on how this influences uncertainty and dilemmas in decision-making in practice. These findings add further weight for the argument that treatment burden should be included in clinical guidelines.

Pre-diabetes is a risk factor for the development of diabetes, not a disease in its own right. The prevalence increases with age and reaches nearly 50% of those aged over 75 years in the USA. While lifestyle modification and treatment are likely to benefit those with many years of life ahead of them, they are unlikely to benefit patients with a limited life expectancy. Despite this, some very elderly patients in the UK and elsewhere are being labelled as pre-diabetic. While ideal practice would be to carefully consider the impact of any potentially abnormal blood test before it is taken, this is not always possible in routine practice. In this paper, we discuss a pragmatic, ethical approach for clinicians managing pre-diabetic blood tests in very elderly patients. We argue that a ‘see-saw’ model of paternalism should be used in deciding which patients to inform that they can be labelled as pre-diabetic. Those patients that may benefit from the label should be informed, and those that will not, should not. Where the benefits/drawbacks are unclear, the result and its potential significance should be discussed in depth with the individual patient. We do not advocate withholding information from any patient. Instead we suggest clinicians use individual patient circumstances to contextualise the relevance of pre-diabetes to the patient and consider the benefits and drawbacks before informing them. This approach has the potential to be used for other pre-conditions and risk factors in addition to pre-diabetes.

The mechanisms for funding primary care are complex, due to the historical legacy of the many changes in UK general practice, and can be difficult to understand. This article gives a basic outline of how primary care is funded and where individual practices earn income. It explains several of the financial and contractual terms for GPs and discusses some of the current issues in funding. Although much is similar, mechanisms underlying GP funding differ between the four home nations. This article focuses on primary care funding in England.

BackgroundExtended access services were introduced to help stop declining patient satisfaction with access to general practice. There has been no evaluation, at a practice population level, as to how the introduction of these services has impacted patients.AimTo explore the association between practices offering extended access and patient responses to the GP Patient Survey (GPPS).Design & settingAn observational study was carried out. Patient experience data were taken from the national GPPS in England (2018 and 2019). Data on the provision of extended access services were sourced from NHS England. The analyses considered potential confounding factors. These were sourced from publicly available data about practice characteristics from NHS Digital, NHS England, and government websites.MethodThe percentage of patients reporting positive responses to questions related to satisfaction with access, continuity of care, and overall satisfaction were modelled. The association between these outcomes and the provision of extended access were estimated via multivariable fixed-effects linear regression.ResultsThere were no associations between practices offering extended access services and key indicators of patient experience or satisfaction at a practice population level.ConclusionExtended access has a cost of an estimated 250 million GBP per year. While there is a body of work that finds associations with emergency department use reduction, at a practice population level, in this study it has been found that extended access had no measurable impact. This may be because extended access services are only used by a small number of patients, and its introduction has not significantly impacted general practices and most general practice patients.

No abstract

No abstract