ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2026
Experiences of access to general practice in England: qualitative study and implications for the NHS 10 year plan.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report experiences and views of patients, carers, and staff on access to general practice in England in the context of major government plans to reform NHS services.
designQualitative interview study.
settingPatients and carers in Devon, Medway, Blackpool, Luton, and Lancashire, and NHS general practices in the east of England.
participants70 interviews with 41 patients and carers and 29 general practice staff, including general practitioners (GPs), nurses and allied health professionals, practice managers, and administrators. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method, with themes mapped to the three shifts-to digital, to community, and to prevention-proposed in the 10 year plan for England.
resultsPatient participants represented 12 ethnic groups and diverse personal and medical characteristics. The three shifts offered some benefits to participants but also introduced new risks and disadvantages. The shift to greater digitisation in general practice (mainly in the form of online appointment booking systems and access to medical information) offered more convenience for some patients and improved efficiencies. The shift did little to resolve the fundamental scarcity of appointments with a GP, however, and it introduced new forms of disadvantage and exclusion while failing to address what patients were often seeking: human connection and empathy with a GP they knew. The shift from hospital to community based services, with GPs working over greater geographical scale in new neighbourhood based models, was perceived by participants to offer greater capacity for appointments but faced constraints including practical challenges to coordination and organisation. New services encompassing larger areas risked patients feeling unrecognised and unknown at their practice and undermining the long term relationships with GPs that patients valued. Prevention efforts, while accepted as important, were seen as challenged by their tendency to fragment care, oversimplified models focused on single diseases, and consuming capacity that could otherwise be used for contacts initiated by patients. Concern about increased workload for staff at general practices was consistently expressed.
conclusionsAlthough improving access to general practice is a stated priority in government plans to reform NHS services, the three proposed shifts may not be what patients are seeking or what practices want in order to support their work. The proposals will require careful design, implementation, and evaluation in collaboration with key stakeholders, to ensure they do not undermine continuity of care nor fragment existing services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.