British Journal of General Practice最新文献

Background: Patient satisfaction is a significant dimension of quality in general practice and has notably declined post-COVID. Understanding the dynamics between practice activities, practice characteristics, and patient experience is vital for improving care quality.

Aim: To investigate the relationship between the volume, modality (telephone or face to face), and practitioner type of general practice appointments and patient experience.

Design and setting: This was an observational study of general practices in England.

Method: Data from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS) were merged with NHS England's practice-level appointment data, covering August 2022 to March 2023. Ordinary least squares regressions were estimated of patient satisfaction with access, general satisfaction, preference for a specific GP, and support for managing long-term conditions (dependent variables) against appointment volume, modality (telephone or face to face), and practitioner type.

Results: Analysis of 5278 practices showed that a higher volume of appointments, especially face to face with GPs, was significantly (P<0.001) associated with increased patient satisfaction. Practices having a greater proportion of same-day appointments was significantly correlated with lower patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: Patient satisfaction and ability to have health needs met is associated with face-to-face access to GPs as well as the total volume of appointments available. The results suggest that patients' perceptions of access involve more than immediate availability of appointments or that patients may struggle to get appointments at practices offering more same-day appointments. Initiatives to improve access to, and satisfaction with, general practice should prioritise expanding face-to-face GP appointments.

Background: Hypertension is the leading modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease. Primary care management is predominantly individual and remains suboptimal. Interventions delivered to groups incorporate peer support and potentially offer efficient use of limited resources. Evidence for the benefits of group-delivered interventions in hypertension is unclear.

Aim: To determine whether group-delivered hypertension interventions improve blood pressure (BP) outcomes compared to usual care (UC).

Design and setting: Systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials in community, primary, or outpatient care settings.

Method: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 20 March 2024 for randomised controlled trials comparing group-delivered interventions to UC for adults with hypertension. Primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic BP, achievement of study BP targets and medication adherence; quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were pooled according to intervention type using random effects meta-analyses; predictors of BP lowering were modelled with meta-regression.

Results: Overall, 5326 citations were retrieved; 59 intervention groups (IGs) from 54 studies (13 976 participants) were included. Compared to UC, systolic BP reduced by 7.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7 to 9.6; 23 IGs) following exercise, 4.8 mmHg (95% CI = 3.2 to 6.4; 26 IGs) following lifestyle education, and 3.6 mmHg (95% CI = 0.3 to 6.9; seven IGs) following psychotherapeutic interventions. Corresponding reductions in diastolic BP were 3.9 mmHg (95% CI = 2.6 to 5.2; 21 IGs), 2.9 mmHg (95% CI = 1.8 to 3.9; 24 IGs), and 1.2 mmHg (95% CI = -1.9 to 4.3; seven IGs). Achievement of target BP and medication adherence were infrequently reported, with equivocal findings (relative risks 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.2, P = 0.02, 11 IGs and 1.0, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1, P = 0.60, seven IGs, respectively). In multivariable models, higher baseline BP and pre-existing cardiovascular morbidity were associated with greater BP reductions.

Conclusion: Group-delivered interventions were effective at lowering BP for people with hypertension compared with UC; their feasibility and cost-effectiveness in primary care require further study.