Introduction The pursuit of health care equity is a fundamental objective for Aotearoa New Zealand, and patient co-payments in primary care challenge this goal. Aim This study aimed to investigate the relationship between primary health care co-payments and the sociodemographic variables in areas where general practices provide health care. Methods Using census data, facilities information from the Ministry of Health, and socioeconomic deprivation indices, linear regression models were used to explore the relationship between weighted average fees charged by general practices and various sociodemographic variables in statistical area 2 regions. Results The study finds that areas with higher proportions of males and economically deprived individuals are associated with lower weighted average fees. Conversely, areas with higher proportions of retirement-aged and European individuals are linked with higher weighted average fees. The inclusion of the Very-Low-Cost-Access variable, indicating a subsidy scheme at the general practice level, made all the sociodemographic variables practically insignificant, suggesting Very-Low-Cost-Access practices are in the right geographical location to target high needs groups. Discussion The findings affirm the complexity of health care inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand, influenced not only by financial factors but also by demographic variables as they play out geographically. While subsidy schemes like the Very-Low-Cost-Access scheme appear to reach groups with greater need, a high level of unmet need due to cost suggests that the fees are still too high. Policymakers need to consider disparities in the on-going health care reforms and make further changes to subsidy schemes to reduce unmet need.

暂无摘要。

Introduction Few mandatory community-based attachments for postgraduate year two doctors (PGY2s) in Aotearoa New Zealand are hosted in general practices, due to space, time and remuneration barriers. Aim This study aimed to explore the costs, barriers and enablers to general practices of hosting PGY2s. Methods A cost analysis for four general practices beginning to host PGY2s was undertaken, including time spent supervising and supporting PGY2s, revenue impact including subsidies and cost of providing clinical space. Interviews with these practices and seven experienced PGY2 host practices were conducted and analysed thematically. Results The estimated mean cost of hosting PGY2s excluding room cost was NZ$4907 per 13-week placement (range $890-$9183), increasing to $13 727 per placement (range $5750-$24 715) when room rental was included. Four themes were identified: working within a small business model; a new learning environment for PGY2s; providing positive experiences for the PGY2s; the relationship between practices and district hospitals that employed the PGY2s, including job sizing. Discussion Tension exists between the small business model of general practice and providing positive experiences for PGY2s in a new learning environment. Guidance and support structures for PGY2 hosting should be developed nationally, and communication and cooperation between practices and employing hospitals needs improvement. Out-of-hours work should be included in community-based attachments so PGY2s\' remuneration is consistent. General practice teams are willing to be part of creating a sustainable workforce. However, the time taken to host and costs of providing training in primary care are barriers. There is urgent need to increase funding to general practices for hosting PGY2s.

Introduction Around 5% of the people in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) are not enrolled with a general practice. Aim This study aimed to explore the utilisation of general practice by enrolment status and subsequent use of an emergency department. Methods We compared a cohort of respondents from New Zealand Health Surveys (2013/14-2018/19) on self-reported general practice utilisation and their substitutes, according to their enrolment status (enrolled and not enrolled). They were then followed up to examine their subsequent use of an emergency department. Time to an emergency department presentation was modelled with proportional hazards regression models with enrolment status as the explanatory variable. Confounding variables used were sex, age group, prioritised ethnicity, the New Zealand Deprivation Index and self-rated health. Results Those not enrolled were more likely to be young, male, Asian, more socioeconomically deprived and with better health status than those enrolled. Generally, those not enrolledutilised general practice services less. Those not enrolled who had used an emergency department were more likely to have used it as a substitute for general practice (40% vs 26%). Modelling showed that those not enrolled took longer to access an emergency department. Adjusting for confounding variables did not change that interpretation. Discussion Those not enrolled were younger and healthier and may have a perception that enrolment isn\'t necessary. As a group, they were more likely to be socioeconomically deprived and to use an emergency department, which is free at a public hospital in NZ, as a substitute for primary care which suggests that cost may influence their choices.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment for surveys has been a great challenge, especially in general practice.
METHODS: Here, we reported recruitment strategies, data collection, participation rates (PR) and representativeness of the PRICOV-19 study, an international comparative, cross-sectional, online survey among general practices (GP practices) in 37 European countries and Israel.
RESULTS: Nine (24%) countries reported a published invitation; 19 (50%) had direct contact with all GPs/GP practices; 19 (50%) contacted a sample of GPs /GP practices; and 7 (18%) used another invitation strategy. The median participation rate was 22% (IQR = 10%, 28%). Multiple invitation strategies (P-value 0.93) and multiple strategies to increase PR (P-value 0.64) were not correlated with the PR. GP practices in (semi-) rural areas, GP practices serving more than 10,000 patients, and group practices were over-represented (P-value < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the PR and strength of the primary care (PC) system [Spearman\'s r 0.13, 95% CI (-0.24, 0.46); P-value 0.49]; the COVID-19 morbidity [Spearman\'s r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.49); P-value 0.24], or COVID-19 mortality [Spearman\'s r 0.19, 95% CI (-0.02, 0.58); P-value 0.06] during the three months before country-specific study commencement.
CONCLUSIONS: Our main contribution here was to describe the survey recruitment and representativeness of PRICOV-19, an important and novel study.

BACKGROUND: The unprecedented increase in telehealth use due to COVID-19 has changed general practitioners\' (GP) and patients\' engagement in healthcare. There is limited specific advice for effective communication when using telehealth. Examining telehealth use in practice in conjunction with perspectives on telehealth as they relate to communication allows opportunities to produce evidence-based guidance for optimal use of telehealth, while also offering practitioners the opportunity to reflect on elements of their communicative practice common to both styles of consultation. The objective of this research was to develop evidence-based resources to support effective, person-centred communication when GPs and patients use telehealth. This included examination of interactional practices of recorded telehealth consultations, exploration of GP and patient perspectives relating to telehealth, and identifying priorities for guidance informed by these analyses as well as participant co-design.
METHODS: This study involved recording telehealth consultations (n = 42), conducting patient surveys (n = 153), and interviewing patients (n = 9) and GPs (n = 15). These were examined using interaction analytic methods, quantitative analysis, and thematic analyses, to create a robust, integrated picture of telehealth practice and perspectives. The process of research translation involved a co-design approach, engaging with providers, patients, and policy makers to facilitate development of evidence-based principles that focus on supporting effective communication when using telehealth.
RESULTS: Three key themes relating to communication in telehealth were identified across the different analyses. These were relationship building, conversational flow, and safety netting. The draft best practice principles drawn from these themes were modified based on co-design feedback into five Best Practice Principles for Communication between GPs and Patients using Telehealth.
CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication is supported through relationship building and attention to conversational flow in telehealth consultations, which in turn allows for safety netting to occur. In telehealth, GPs and patients recognise that not being co-present changes the consultation and use both intuitive and strategic interactional adjustments to support their exchange. The mixed-method examination of experiences through both a detailed analysis of telehealth consultations in practice and comparative exploration of GP and patient perspectives enabled the identification of principles that can support effective communication when using telehealth. Co-design helped ensure these principles are ready for implementation into practice.

BACKGROUND: Dominant conceptualisations of access to healthcare are limited, framed in terms of speed and supply. The Candidacy Framework offers a more comprehensive approach, identifying diverse influences on how access is accomplished.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterise how the Candidacy Framework can explain access to general practice - an increasingly fraught area of public debate and policy.
METHODS: Qualitative review guided by the principles of critical interpretive synthesis.
METHODS: We conducted a literature review using an \"author-led\" approach, involving iterative analytically-guided searches. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they related to the context of general practice, without geographical or time limitations. Key themes relating to access to general practice were extracted and synthesised using the Candidacy Framework.
RESULTS: 229 papers were included in the final synthesis. Each of the seven features identified in the original Candidacy Framework is highly salient to general practice. Using the lens of candidacy demonstrates that access to general practice is subject to multiple influences that are highly dynamic, contingent and subject to constant negotiation. These influences are socio-economically and institutionally patterned, creating risks to access for some groups. This analysis enables understanding of the barriers to access that may exist even though general practice in the UK is free at the point of care, but also demonstrates that a Candidacy Framework specific to this setting is needed.
CONCLUSIONS: The Candidacy Framework has considerable value as a way of understanding access to general practice, offering new insights for policy and practice. The original framework would benefit from further customisation for the distinctive setting of general practice.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) was introduced by NHS England in 2020 alongside Primary Care Networks (PCNs) with aims of increasing the workforce and improving patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Describe the uptake of direct-patient care (DPC)-ARRS roles and its impact on patients\' experiences.
METHODS: Ecological study using 2020-2023 PCN and Practice workforce data, registered patient characteristics, the General Practice Patient Survey, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).
METHODS: Descriptive statistics with associations examined using quantile and linear regression.
RESULTS: By March 2023, 17,714 FTE DPC-ARRS roles were commissioned by 1,223 PCNs. PCNs with fewer constituent practices had more DPC-ARRS roles per population (p<0.001) as did PCNs with more FTE GPs per population (p=0.012). DPC-ARRS commissioning did not vary with age, proportion female or deprivation of practice populations. DPC-ARRS roles were associated with small increases in patient satisfaction (0.8 percentage points increase in patients satisfied per one DPC-ARRS FTE) and perceptions of access (0.7 percentage points increase in patients reporting \'good\' experience of making an appointment per one DPC-ARRS FTE), but not with overall QOF achievement.
CONCLUSIONS: The commissioning of DPC-ARRS roles was associated with small increases in patient satisfaction and perceptions of access, but not with QOF achievement. DPC-ARRS roles were employed in areas with more GPs rather than compensating for a shortage of doctors. Single practice PCNs commissioned more roles per registered population, which may be advantageous to single practice PCNs. Further evaluation of the scheme is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Research activity usually improves outcomes by being translated into practice. However, there is developing evidence that research activity itself may improve the overall performance of health care organisations. However, evidence that these relationships represent a causal impact of research activity is less clear. Additionally, the bulk of the existing evidence relates to hospital settings, and it is not known if those relationships would also be found in general practice, where most patient contacts occur.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to (a) test whether there were significant relationships between research activity in general practice and organisational performance (b) test whether those relationships were plausibly causal.
METHODS: We analysed national data between 2008 and 2019 using cross sectional and longitudinal analyses, on general practices in England.
METHODS: We used cross-sectional, panel and instrumental variable analyses to explore relationships between research activity (including measures from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners) and practice performance (including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, prescribing quality and hospital admissions) Results: In cross-sectional analyses, research activity was positively associated with several measures of practice performance, including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, and reduced hospital admissions. The associations were generally modest in magnitude. However, longitudinal analyses did not support a reliable causal relationship.
CONCLUSIONS: Similar to findings from hospital settings, research activity in general practice is associated with practice performance. There is less evidence that research is causing those improvements, although this may reflect the limited level of research activity in most practices. We identified no negative impacts, suggesting that research activity is a potential marker of quality and something that high quality practices can deliver alongside their core responsibilities.

暂无摘要。