scholarly journals Equity of access to primary care in the UK: is it likely to increase?

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Abbott
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Adam Shathur ◽  
Samuel Reeves ◽  
Faizal Sameja ◽  
Vishal Patel ◽  
Allan Jones

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic enforced the cessation of routine dentistry and the creation of local urgent dental care systems in the UK. General dental practices are obligated by NHS guidance to remain open and provide remote consultation and referral where appropriate to patients having pain or problems. Aims: To compare two urgent dental centres with different triage and referral systems with regard to quality and appropriateness of referrals, and patient management outcomes. Methods: 110 consecutive referrals received by a primary care urgent dental centre and a secondary care urgent dental centre were assessed. It was considered whether the patients referred had access to remote primary care dental services, fulfilled the criteria required to be deemed a dental emergency as mandated by NHS guidance, and what the outcomes of referrals were. Results: At the primary care centre, 100% of patients were referred by general dental practitioners and had access to remote primary care dental services. 95.5% of referrals were deemed appropriate and were seen for treatment. At the secondary care site, 94.5% of referrals were direct from the patient by contacting NHS 111. 40% had received triaging to include ‘advice, analgesia and antimicrobial’ from a general dental practitioner, and 25.5% were deemed appropriate and resulted in treatment. Conclusion: Urgent dental centres face many issues, and it would seem that easy access to primary care services, collaboration between primary care clinicians and urgent dental centres, and training of triaging staff are important in operating a successful system.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Bristow ◽  
S. Edwards ◽  
E. Funnel ◽  
L. Fisher ◽  
L. Gask ◽  
...  

Background. In the UK, most people with mental health problems are managed in primary care. However, many individuals in need of help are not able to access care, either because it is not available, or because the individual's interaction with care-givers deters or diverts help-seeking. Aims. To understand the experience of seeking care for distress from the perspective of potential patients from “hard-to-reach” groups. Methods. A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, analysed using a thematic framework. Results. Access to primary care is problematic in four main areas: how distress is conceptualised by individuals, the decision to seek help, barriers to help-seeking, and navigating and negotiating services. Conclusion. There are complex reasons why people from “hard-to-reach” groups may not conceptualise their distress as a biomedical problem. In addition, there are particular barriers to accessing primary care when distress is recognised by the person and help-seeking is attempted. We suggest how primary care could be more accessible to people from “hard-to-reach” groups including the need to offer a flexible, non-biomedical response to distress.


2021 ◽  
pp. BJGP.2021.0375
Author(s):  
Jennifer Voorhees ◽  
Simon Bailey ◽  
Heather Waterman ◽  
Katherine Checkland

Background: Good access to primary care is an important determinant of population health. Whilst the academic literature on access to care emphasises its complexity, policies aimed at improving access to general practice in the UK have tended to focus on measurable aspects, such as timeliness or number of appointments. Aim: To fill the gap between the complex understanding of primary care access in the literature and the narrow definition of access assumed in UK policies. Design and Setting: Qualitative, community-based participatory case study within the geographic footprint of a Clinical Commissioning Group in northwest England. Method: We applied Levesque et al.’s conceptual framework of patient-centred access and used multiple qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups, observation). Analysis was ongoing, iterative, inductive, and abductive with the theory. Results: The comprehensiveness of Levesque et al.’s access theory resonated with diverse participant experiences. However, while a strength of Levesque et al. was to highlight the importance of people’s abilities to access care, our data suggest equal importance of healthcare workforce abilities to make care accessible. Thus, we present a definition of access as the ‘human fit’ between the needs and abilities of people in the population and the abilities and capacity of people in the healthcare workforce, and provide a modified conceptual framework reflecting these insights. Conclusion: An understanding of access as ‘human fit’ has the potential to address longstanding problems of access within general practice, focusing attention on the need for staff training and support, and emphasising the importance of continuity of care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document