Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31501167›Full record

Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019

How widespread is working at scale in English general practice? An observational study.

Lindsay Jl Forbes, Hannah Forbes, Matt Sutton, Katherine Checkland, Stephen Peckham

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice: observational study using data from the UK GP Patient Survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Observational
  5. Variability in size and characteristics of primary care networks in England: observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lindsay Jl ForbesCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury.
Hannah ForbesDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Matt SuttonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Katherine ChecklandDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Stephen PeckhamCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last 5 years, national policy has encouraged general practices to serve populations of >30 000 people (called 'working at scale') by collaborating with other practices.

aimTo describe the number of English general practices working at scale, and their patient populations. DESIGN AND

settingObservational study of general practices in England.

methodData published by the NHS on practices' self-reports of working in groups were supplemented with data from reports by various organisations and practice group websites. Practices were categorised by the extent to which they were working at scale; within these categories, the age distribution of the practice population, level of socioeconomic deprivation, rurality, and prevalence of longstanding illness were then examined.

resultsApproximately 55% of English practices (serving 33.5 million patients) were working at scale, individually or collectively serving populations of >30 000 people. Organisational models representing close collaboration for the purposes of core general practice services were identifiable for approximately 5% of practices; these comprised large practices, superpartnerships, and multisite organisations. Approximately 50% of practices were working in looser forms of collaboration, focusing on services beyond core general practice; for example, primary care in the evenings and at weekends. Data on organisational models and the purpose of the collaboration were very limited for this group.

conclusionIn early 2018, approximately 5% of general practices were working closely at scale; approximately half of practices were working more loosely at scale. However, data were incomplete. Better records of what is happening at practice level should be collected so that the effect of working at scale on patient care can be evaluated.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareEnglandGeneral PracticeHumansPrimary Health CareState MedicineEnglandgeneral practicehealth policyorganisational modelsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID31501167
PMCPMC6733587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.