The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings

A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings
A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings
Background: Encouraged by the increased purchasing power of general (practitioners (GPs), specialist-run clinics in general practice and community health care settings (known as specialist outreach clinics) have increased rapidly across England. The activities of local commissioning schemes within primary care groups are likely to accelerate this trend.

Aim: To evaluate the costs processes, and benefits of specialists' outreach clinics held in GPs' surgeries compared with hospital outpatient clinics.

Design of Study: A case-referent (comparative) study comparing the characteristics of outreach clinics (cases) with matched outpatient control clinics.

Setting: Thirty-eight outreach clinics, compared with 38 matched outpatient clinics as controls covering 14 hospital trust areas across England

Method: Self-administered questionnaires were given to patients in both clinic settings. These covered processes, satisfaction, personal costs and health status, with postal follow-up at six months to assess health outcomes. Self-administered questionnaires were also given to the specialists and GPs whose clinics were included in the study (individual patient clinical sheet and an attitude questionnaire), practice managers, and trust accountants (process and costs questionnaire). Evaluation of the costs, processes, and benefits of specialist outreach clinics versus hospital outpatient clinics was carried our by comparing questionnaire responses.

Results: In comparison with outpatients outreach clinic patients spent less rime on the waiting lists for appointments to see the specialist, they had shorter waiting times in clinics, fewer follow-up appointments, and were more likely to he completely discharged after the sampled attendance. Outreach patients were more satisfied than outpatients with the range of clinic process items asked about. Most doctors felt that the outreach clinic was 'worthwhile'. While patients' personal costs were lower in outreach than in outpatients clinics, NHS costs were more expensive per patient in outreach. The benefits of outreach clinics on patients 'health status at six months' follow-up were relatively small.

Conclusions: Outreach clinics are a means of improving access to specialist services for patients in addition to improving the efficiency and quality of health care. Most results were similar across specialties and areas. The benefits of the outreach service need to be weighed against their substantially higher NHS costs, in comparison with outpatients clinics Outreach clinics are unlikely to be financially justifiable for NHS funding given that the impact on patients' health status was small.
health care access, specialist care, ambulatory care, primary-secondary care interface
0960-1643
264 - 269
Bowling, Ann
796ca209-687f-4079-8a40-572076251936
Bond, Matthew
af8c8608-71cf-488b-b4cd-d14d5725dfcd
Bowling, Ann
796ca209-687f-4079-8a40-572076251936
Bond, Matthew
af8c8608-71cf-488b-b4cd-d14d5725dfcd

Bowling, Ann and Bond, Matthew (2001) A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings. British Journal of General Practice, 51 (465), 264 - 269. (PMID:11458477)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Encouraged by the increased purchasing power of general (practitioners (GPs), specialist-run clinics in general practice and community health care settings (known as specialist outreach clinics) have increased rapidly across England. The activities of local commissioning schemes within primary care groups are likely to accelerate this trend.

Aim: To evaluate the costs processes, and benefits of specialists' outreach clinics held in GPs' surgeries compared with hospital outpatient clinics.

Design of Study: A case-referent (comparative) study comparing the characteristics of outreach clinics (cases) with matched outpatient control clinics.

Setting: Thirty-eight outreach clinics, compared with 38 matched outpatient clinics as controls covering 14 hospital trust areas across England

Method: Self-administered questionnaires were given to patients in both clinic settings. These covered processes, satisfaction, personal costs and health status, with postal follow-up at six months to assess health outcomes. Self-administered questionnaires were also given to the specialists and GPs whose clinics were included in the study (individual patient clinical sheet and an attitude questionnaire), practice managers, and trust accountants (process and costs questionnaire). Evaluation of the costs, processes, and benefits of specialist outreach clinics versus hospital outpatient clinics was carried our by comparing questionnaire responses.

Results: In comparison with outpatients outreach clinic patients spent less rime on the waiting lists for appointments to see the specialist, they had shorter waiting times in clinics, fewer follow-up appointments, and were more likely to he completely discharged after the sampled attendance. Outreach patients were more satisfied than outpatients with the range of clinic process items asked about. Most doctors felt that the outreach clinic was 'worthwhile'. While patients' personal costs were lower in outreach than in outpatients clinics, NHS costs were more expensive per patient in outreach. The benefits of outreach clinics on patients 'health status at six months' follow-up were relatively small.

Conclusions: Outreach clinics are a means of improving access to specialist services for patients in addition to improving the efficiency and quality of health care. Most results were similar across specialties and areas. The benefits of the outreach service need to be weighed against their substantially higher NHS costs, in comparison with outpatients clinics Outreach clinics are unlikely to be financially justifiable for NHS funding given that the impact on patients' health status was small.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: April 2001
Keywords: health care access, specialist care, ambulatory care, primary-secondary care interface
Organisations: Faculty of Health Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 334702
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/334702
ISSN: 0960-1643
PURE UUID: 964e1375-5b87-4263-8da2-b15beef65f91

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Mar 2012 09:07
Last modified: 08 Jan 2022 17:50

Export record

Contributors

Author: Ann Bowling
Author: Matthew Bond

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×