A paradox of problems in accessing general practice: a qualitative participatory case study
Jennifer Voorhees, Simon Bailey, Heather Waterman, Kath Checkland
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite longstanding problems of access to general practice, attempts to understand and address the issues do not adequately include perspectives of the people providing or using care, nor do they use established theories of access to understand complexity. AIM: To understand problems of access to general practice from the multiple perspectives of service users and staff using an applied theory of access. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative participatory case study in an area of northwest England. METHOD: 's theory of access, allowed the team to identify complexities and relationships between interrelated problems. RESULTS: This study presents a paradox of problems in accessing general practice, in which the demand on general practice both creates and hides unmet need in the population. Data show how reactive rules to control demand have undermined important aspects of care, such as continuity. The layers of rules and decreased continuity create extra work for practice staff, clinicians, and patients. Complicated rules, combined with a lack of capacity to reach out or be flexible, leave many patients, including those with complex and/or unrecognised health needs, unable to navigate the system to access care. This relationship between demand and unmet need exacerbates existing health inequities. CONCLUSION: Understanding the paradox of access problems allows for different targets for change and different solutions to free up capacity in general practice to address the unmet need in the population.