
Patients would rather see a GP than pharmacists and nurses, study finds
The review of 33 existing studies, from the University of Southampton, also found patients often like to choose a specific doctor to maintain continuity of care.
Trust and confidence decreased when patients wanted to see a GP but were directed to a nurse or other health worker instead, it added.
The study noted people also wanted easier ways to book GP appointments, clearer phone options, shorter recorded messages, and simple online routes with quick responses.
It comes after the Government published its 10-year health plan which intends to massively increase use of the NHS App, as well as recruit more GPs.
An improved app will give patients more control over booking, moving and cancelling appointments, as well as quicker access to medics and other forms of care.
The new study, published in the British Journal of General Practice, suggested confidence and trust scores appeared to be lower when people wanted a face-to-face appointment and received a call instead.
The public also wanted clear details on the roles of different NHS workers, it found.
Lead author Helen Atherton, professor of primary care research, said: 'Patients want a deeper connection with their doctor's practice, better communication, and the choice to see the right professional in the best way for them.
'The NHS needs to better understand what people want so it can shape its services to work for patients.
'Ignoring these fundamental needs will only exacerbate the issues it currently faces.'
Writing in the journal, Prof Atherton and colleagues added: 'Patients wanted a nearby practice, with clean waiting rooms, easy appointment booking using simple systems and with short waiting times, and to be kept informed about the process.'
In particular, researchers found that, for medication reviews and long-term conditions, patients preferred seeing someone they were familiar with.
The research also suggested that, where a patient's condition was worsening, 69.5% of patients reported preferring to consult a GP than a pharmacist and 42.7% strongly agreed or agreed that they would prefer to consult with a GP rather than a pharmacist.
Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: 'It's really encouraging to see how much patients value the care, and continuity of care, their GP provides – there are some things that only a GP can do for their patients, but it's also important that patients don't feel somehow short-changed if they're offered an appointment with another member of our highly-skilled multi-disciplinary team.
'Not all patients need to see a GP. Procedures such as blood tests, routine management of non-complex long-term conditions, the monitoring of repeat prescriptions, or assessment of a painful joint, for example, can be carried out by some of the various other members of the team who now work in general practice, such as nursing staff, mental health professionals, clinical pharmacists and physiotherapists.
'This also alleviates workload on GPs, allowing us to spend time with those patients with complex health needs who really do need our expert medical attention.
'However, we know that even when working as part of multi-disciplinary teams, patients often struggle to access their GP when they need to – and we share their frustrations.
'This is due to decades of under-funding of general practice and poor workforce planning, which has meant patient need for our care has escalated in recent years, while GP numbers have sadly not risen in step.
'We need thousands more GPs, and the recently published 10-Year health plan commits to providing these.
'We're now looking ahead to the revised long-term workforce plan, due later this year, to see how the Government plans to recruit more GPs and keep more GPs in the profession for longer – but also address some of the nonsensical issues GPs are reporting that they can't find appropriate employment upon qualification.'
Henry Gregg, chief executive of the National Pharmacy Association, said: 'It's not surprising that people want to see a GP when they go to a GP surgery but all our research and experience shows that people are very happy to visit a pharmacy if they can access treatment or advice quickly without having to wait to see a GP.
'Pharmacists are highly trained medical professionals who offer first-class care for a range of ailments quickly and conveniently and will send patients to a GP or hospital if needs be.
'Increasingly people will be able to pop into a community pharmacy and see a highly qualitied pharmacist for things like screening, check-ups, HRT, weight management or ongoing care without lengthy waits, freeing their NHS colleagues in hospitals and GPs to do more and offering patients the choice and convenience we all want to see.'
Royal College of Nursing chief nursing officer, Lynn Woolsey, said: 'Nursing staff are an integral part of any general practice delivering a range of services to patients.
'They lead public health clinics, run screening and vaccination programmes, support patients in the management of chronic disease and can diagnose and prescribe.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scottish Sun
36 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Ozempic-like fat jabs ‘boost men's sex lives – reversing testosterone drops'
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) WEIGHT loss jabs could boost men's sex lives, a study suggests. Research found injections like Wegovy and Mounjaro can raise blokes' low testosterone levels. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 More than a million people in the UK use weight loss injections (stock image) Credit: Getty The hormone is a big factor in the male sex drive, known as libido, as well as a driver of strength, muscle gain and fat loss. Testosterone levels commonly decline with age or when someone is obese or has type 2 diabetes – amounting to millions of men in the UK. A study by the St Louis University Hospital in Missouri, USA, tracked 110 men in their 40s, 50s and 60s who were being treated with semaglutide – aka Ozempic or Wegovy – or tirzepatide, known as Mounjaro. At the start of their treatment just 53 per cent of the men had normal testosterone levels. Symptoms of low testosterone can include tiredness, weakness and fat gain, feeling depressed, brain fog, and a lack of desire or inability to perform in the bedroom. Treatment increased rate of healthy testosterone After 18 months of treatment with the fat jabs, the proportion of men with healthy hormone levels increased to 77 per cent. Study author Dr Shellsea Portillo Canales said: 'Our study is among the first to provide compelling evidence that low testosterone can be reversed with the use of commonly prescribed anti-obesity medications. 'Doctors and their patients can now consider this class of medications not only for the treatment of obesity and to control blood sugar, but also to benefit men's reproductive health.' More than 1.5million Brits are thought to be taking weight loss injections, known as GLP-1 receptor agonists. NHS prescriptions have rocketed from 1.4million in 2023 to 2.7million in 2024, and more than a million people are paying for them privately. I went from 27 lbs in six weeks with Mounjaro after 15 years of trying to lose weight it has completely changed my life As well as rapid weight loss and treatment for type 2 diabetes, research suggests the jabs may also reduce the risk of some cancers, heart diseases and dementia.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Who will join my Dunkirk cheese raid and break the blockade?
When I was pregnant with my first son I cast my eye over the long NHS list of verboten foods and my eyes alighted on 'soft cheeses made from unpasteurised milk'. Adding insult to injury, I was also informed that blue cheese was off the menu unless part of a recipe where it was heated to a temperature that killed bacteria. As you might expect of any rational woman with a halfway discerning palate, I muttered: 'I'd rather stick a fork in my eye.' I then looked up the risk posed by listeria infection to healthy women in the UK and found it was very low (currently around 0.23 cases per 100,000 women). I remembered the women of Sparta who laid weedy newborns out at the Apothetae – a cave at the foot of Mount Taygetus – to test their viability in the face of the elements and thought I'm just exposing this kid to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune early. So, I continued to feast on Camembert, Roquefort, Berthaut Epoisses de Bourgogne and delectable gooey goats cheese. I had such bad morning sickness that very few foods weren't immediately disgorged, with the exception of sour dough, full fat dairy products and proper English orchard apples. The pregnant body is a ruthless dictator and knows what it wants to build a vital young human. But thank heavens I'm not pregnant in the summer of 2025, as a full-scale fromage crisis threatens our shores. It seems that an outbreak of bovine lumpy skin disease in France and Italy has led 'overzealous' Defra bureaucrats to impose a temporary ban on importing any unpasteurised cheeses made in the two countries after May 23. This means a sudden scrabble to secure cheese produced before that date or a pasteurised version, which in turn means complex paperwork, in mother tongues, that border officials seem unable to process until the product is spoilt. In turn, this means the UK's finest delis and restaurants are running out of their most delectable, sought-after offerings, although there's zero evidence that there's any threat to human health. Meanwhile, our French cousins can carry on savouring divinely-tasty unpasteurised Brie de Meaux, while yelling at us from Calais: 'Let them eat Cheddar!' I don't think there's been a bigger threat to the rivalrous nations' precarious, on-off entente cordiale since the 2022 World Cup quarter-final match, when France carried the day (and poor Harry Kane missed a penalty). Personally, I can cede a footie match, but deny me my soft cheese and I might turn nasty. But what this sorry tale really illustrates is the stupendous idiocy of the bureaucrats and politicians in charge of our food policies. We have just signed a trade deal with the US that may pave the way for all kinds of intestine-challenging gunk. Yet faced with a mouth-watering slice of Ossau-Iraty that poses no known threat to public health, British administrators are behaving like cheese-denying surrender monkeys.


Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The NHS model is on its last legs — time to replace it
At last, the unthinkable is being seriously thought about healthcare in Britain. The NHS is bust. More and more billions are periodically thrown at it, but its waiting lists are horrendous and relative to other comparable countries it does poorly in life expectancy and healthy life chances. Only the US does worse. As the largest employer in Europe, the NHS has some 1.38 million full-time equivalent staff who absorb almost half the budget for day-to-day spending. It's virtually impossible to run efficiently, and examples abound of rotten management and excessive bureaucracy. So says a report by Policy Exchange, which declares that this has to end. From 1955 to 2023, real health expenditure per capita rose by about 850 per cent. At 9 per cent of GDP, government health spending is almost the highest of all developed countries and by some estimates will rise to more than 20 per cent of GDP by 2070. Without radical reform, says the report, other public spending would have to be squeezed or taxation would need to be increased to eye-watering levels. This would damage the economy so badly that 'it simply cannot be allowed to happen'. In his foreword, the former health secretary Sir Sajid Javid says Britain is now at a crossroads. The NHS model can't cope with spiralling demand. It's run entirely by the state and its agencies. By contrast, says Javid, the very best performing healthcare systems combine high levels of state subsidy, mandatory insurance, co-payments, and individual choice. The report accordingly proposes replacing the tax-funded NHS by compulsory insurance, backed up by a publicly funded safety net to cover the poor, plus some element of co-payment to incentivise people to look after themselves. It recommends the model adopted by the Netherlands in 2006 under which people choose their insurance providers, with the state's role reduced to regulating insurers and providing the safety net for those who can't afford to insure themselves. Dutch healthcare costs are now proportionately lower than in the UK, waiting lists are smaller and health outcomes generally better. It has been clear for years that European-style social insurance systems fulfil the moral obligations of the NHS while providing better outcomes. Yet the NHS has been treated by Conservatives and Labour alike as the most sacred of political cows. This is even though it's not just failing to deliver adequate healthcare but the enormous sums it's swallowing are seriously distorting the economy, diverting essential investment from services ranging from education to defence. However, the whole public sector is on its knees for which the NHS is not the principal cause. The criminal justice system, for example, is collapsing through sustained and serious underfunding. The retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson has now controversially proposed to limit trial by jury to tackle the immense backlog of cases, some of which take years to come to trial and may have to be abandoned because of the passage of time. Limiting jury trial, however, won't solve the problem because the lower courts are also under immense strain, as are the prisons and the police. The essence of the problem is that for decades Britain has been living a lie. It has indulged itself in a welfare state without taking the measures to pay for it. This goes back to the end of the Second World War, when the Attlee government decided that the spirit of the times demanded the building of a brave new world based on collective provision and equality. Far less attention was paid to creating the wealth to pay for this nirvana. It was assumed that redistributing wealth from rich to poor would pay for it all. Society thus moved from making to taking, producing less and less while telling itself that it had a right to welfare provision and that the rich should stump up. No government (other than Margaret Thatcher's) was brave enough to deliver some essential home truths about spending above the country's means. Instead, governments lied that things were getting better and that more was being spent. In fact, the public sector was being salami-sliced to shuffle funds from one service to another; and all were being fleeced to pour more billions into the black hole of the NHS. The ultimate symbol of this irresponsibility, and a principal force behind Britain's slide from making to taking, has been the benefits system. According to the Centre for Social Justice, people claiming universal credit and payments for ill health will soon earn £2,500 more than through the minimum wage. The Office for National Statistics says nearly one in four working-age people are classified as disabled. The NHS Confederation says that in 2021-22, 63,392 people went straight from university on to long-term sickness benefits, with an incredible increase among 25 to 34-year-olds of 69 per cent in five years. Last week, Kemi Badenoch rightly said the UK was 'sitting on a ticking time bomb' of spiralling welfare dependency, spending more on sickness benefits than on defence. The NHS model must be replaced to provide the equitable and efficient provision of healthcare to which politicians pay such dishonest lip service, and to protect the economy from such damaging distortions. But the underlying issue of an unaffordable welfare state can only be tackled by a government brave enough to recreate the work ethic, and an economy that delivers the jobs to inspire it.