Contract and ownership type of general practices and patient experience in England: multilevel analysis of a national cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Objective: To examine associations between the contract and ownership type of general practices and patient experience in England. Design: Multilevel linear regression analysis of a national cross-sectional patient survey (General Practice Patient Survey). Setting: All general practices in England in 2013–2014 (n ¼ 8017). Participants: 903,357 survey respondents aged 18 years or over and registered with a general practice for six months or more (34.3% of 2,631,209 questionnaires sent). Main outcome measures: Patient reports of experience across five measures: frequency of consulting a preferred doctor; ability to get a convenient appointment; rating of doctor communication skills; ease of contacting the practice by telephone; and overall experience (measured on four- or five-level interval scales from 0 to 100). Models adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents and general practice populations and a random intercept for each general practice. Results: Most practices had a centrally negotiated contract with the UK government (‘General Medical Services’ 54.6%; 4337/7949). Few practices were limited companies with locally negotiated ‘Alternative Provider Medical Services’ contracts (1.2%; 98/7949); these practices provided worse overall experiences than General Medical Services practices (adjusted mean difference 3.04, 95% CI 4.15 to 1.94). Associations were consistent in direction across outcomes and largest in magnitude for frequency of consulting a preferred doctor (12.78, 95% CI 15.17 to 10.39). Results were similar for practices owned by large organisations (defined as having 20 practices) which were uncommon (2.2%; 176/7949). Conclusions: Patients registered to general practices owned by limited companies, including large organisations, reported worse experiences of their care than other patients in 2013–2014

Final‐year undergraduate nursing students’ perceptions of general practice nursing: A qualitative study

“…In the UK, general practices are privately owned businesses contracted to deliver primary care (Cowling et al, 2017). On the other hand, many general practices in New Zealand are private businesses, but are increasingly becoming a part of larger corporations or are owned by trusts in low‐socioeconomic areas (Goodyear‐Smith & Kassai, 2015).…”

The impact of practice size and ownership on general practice care in Australia

“…Co‐located services increased as well. In 2016, 81% of practices had pathology services on location versus 49% in 2010; for imaging, these figures are 30% versus 15% and for physiotherapy 50% versus 29% respectively 3,4 …”

“…Corporatisation of general practice in New Zealand is rising as new generation GPs prefer a lower administrative burden 7 . While national policies in the United Kingdom have encouraged partnerships and the integration of general practices to improve service quality and facilitate access, most practice groups have remained independent businesses (< 5% corporate‐owned) 4 …”

Helen Salisbury: Does it matter who owns general practice?

“…It appears that these concerns may have played out in practice: research published in 2017 showed that patients who were registered with general practices owned by limited companies reported worse experiences of care than other patients 34. There’s a legitimate concern that, if your eye is always on the bottom line, standards will shift towards the minimum you can get away with.…”