logo
Patients would rather see a GP than pharmacists and nurses, study finds

Patients would rather see a GP than pharmacists and nurses, study finds

Western Telegraph16 hours ago
A study found that people often like to see a GP and still prefer in-person appointments, considering them the 'gold standard'.
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.
A GP writes a prescription in his practice room at the Temple Fortune Health Centre GP Practice near Golders Green, London (Anthony Devlin/PA)
'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.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Lofty ambition, very little detail': Readers react to Labour's 10-year plan for the NHS
‘Lofty ambition, very little detail': Readers react to Labour's 10-year plan for the NHS

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

‘Lofty ambition, very little detail': Readers react to Labour's 10-year plan for the NHS

Labour's recently unveiled 10-year plan for the NHS has sparked a lively debate among Independent readers, many of whom are cautiously weighing its promises against the past. The plan, unveiled last week by Sir Keir Starmer and Health Secretary Wes Streeting, includes ambitious goals such as 'a doctor in your pocket' through a greatly enhanced NHS smartphone app, 24/7 health advice, easier online appointments, and a shift towards preventative medicine and neighbourhood health centres. When we asked whether you thought Labour's 10-year NHS plan could deliver real improvements, nearly half (47 per cent) of readers said no, citing a lack of funding, staff, and detail. Another 28 per cent said the ambition is right, but delivery will be the real test, while 25 per cent believed it is the bold, long-term reform the NHS requires. Many said the plans represent a welcome move towards modernising a service often criticised for being stuck in analogue times. Yet, despite the optimism around the digital and structural reforms, several readers remained sceptical about whether the plan could deliver the improvements the NHS so desperately needs, with concerns focusing on funding, staffing shortages, and the lack of detailed delivery mechanisms. With the NHS under constant pressure from an ageing population and rising demand, the question of how these reforms will be implemented was front and centre. Here is what readers had to say about the plan's prospects and challenges: 'All just empty words and no delivery' I can say that I am going to travel to the Moon and back – but if I don't say how I intend to do it, how I intend to pay for it, and how anyone will know that I have done it, it is all just empty words and no delivery. The NHS has a huge recruitment/retention problem, and it is going to need tens of thousands of extra staff. In addition, Streeting has run away from Social Care, which is the one thing that will solve the NHS crisis. So like every other plan, it will not be resourced properly – but there will be lots of highly paid executives involved, working out of fancy offices, until the next plan comes along... ListenVeryCarefully 'Prevention is not a quick fix' Prevention work is already undertaken by Public Health departments in local authorities, in collaboration with the NHS. This is absolutely nothing new. Councils spend millions on Public Health preventive work. The problem is that prevention can take years to show an effect or to realise savings for the NHS. Many people don't seem to get that. Preventive work is not a quick fix. To be honest, I am sick of successive governments and highly funded think tanks producing report after report when we already know the answers. Flossie 'They know the answers' The announcement is very short on detail, particularly on how they will help prevent ill health. Successive governments have commissioned reports on diet, exercise, and active travel for years – they know the answers. Why the reluctance to announce them and any sort of delivery plan? Holly 'Like a nurse reorganising the Houses of Parliament' Again, the government is seduced into reorganising the organisers and office teams. Non-clinical people always do this, and it makes no difference – it's like a nurse reorganising the Houses of Parliament. Plain hopeless. Emperor's new clothes. Having been through five of these restructures, I can say they never change or improve anything. As always, they want less clinical activity and more admin... Diane1234 'We can't afford an NHS that fixes everything' The biggest problem with the NHS is that we want it to fix every ailment – from cuts and scrapes to organ transplants. Sooner or later, we have to face up to the fact that we can't afford an NHS that tries to fix everything, including things we should take responsibility for, such as obesity. Issuing painkillers to just about every patient who has a procedure is also ludicrous, as paracetamol or ibuprofen costs about 39p a pack in a no-frills supermarket. Using the NHS should be limited to "must do" and "could do" – not "it would be nice if I could use it because I'm too idle to sort out my minor problem myself". We are nearing the point where we will need to pay a small charge for all the high blood pressure pills and statins issued to the older population. They're all on them. onmyown 'Primary prevention works – but it's never been prioritised' Primary prevention has always been the Cinderella service within our health system, because it is not "sexy" and requires hard graft to change attitudes and promote health. But quite simply, it works. As a retired health visitor with more than 40 years in practice, I can categorically state that if you invest in taking health into the community, it will work. For too long, resources have been directed into much more expensive tertiary care. I really hope this time they mean it. HappilyRetiredWoman 'Nothing new' This is nothing new – we've been trying to transfer care from hospitals to communities for years (since Thatcher and "care in the community"). This appears to be a blueprint to shut down more hospitals or reduce funding. This isn't what's needed – just the opposite. Community services are already stretched. Doctors' surgeries are reducing services, and waiting times are too long. Pharmacies are closing down and being sold due to a lack of funding. This 10-year plan is just the usual political BS that won't get to grips with the real problems. ChrisMatthews 'This is the future – and it's already happening' A very good idea. Not far from where I live, there are two modern NHS clinics where diagnostic procedures are performed without the need to travel miles to the general hospital. This is the future, and this is what has already been done in many more advanced European countries. Pomerol95 'Abolish the CQC – there's £50m saved' I recently changed my GP because I was unhappy with the service. The contrast between the two services is stark, and I wondered how it could be that there is such inconsistency at such a basic level. My old GP had a CQC rating of "good", but it was far from that. I dug around a bit and found that the last time the CQC had assessed the practice was in 2016 – nearly a decade ago. The problem with such rating systems, beloved of the competition-obsessed Tories, is that they're actually worse than useless. They create an illusion of competence where it doesn't exist. Plainly, it isn't practical for one organisation to continuously monitor standards throughout the healthcare system, so it should be blindingly obvious that this is not an appropriate way to ensure consistency of service. Abolish the CQC – there's £50m a year saved. RickC 'District hospitals and prevention – let's hope it happens' Moving frontline services to community care centres would be a very positive move. Re-establishing the district hospital would be very popular. Shifting the emphasis to the prevention of illness and the improvement of public health systems is also a laudable aim. Let's hope this can be achieved in 10 years! PaleHorse 'Lofty ambition, very little detail' I cannot see anything concrete in this statement – plenty of lofty ambition, but very little detail. I like the idea of local health centres providing access to diagnostic services. If they are allowed to invest in new equipment, it will speed up the move to digital services. Moonraker2025 'Dangerous to cut cure before prevention pays off' Prevention vs cure is logically all very well – but do we know how to reliably prevent sickness that might put people in hospital? For many conditions, effective systems for prevention might take more than a decade to have much effect. So, no money is saved through needing less for cure for 10 years or more. It is very dangerous to run down curative services until we see the new investment in prevention paying dividends. I suppose Streeting will require the NHS to blame the unwell for not following prevention guidelines – as a sort of "not our responsibility: you did this to yourself". Simplesimon 'So… it won't happen' It would take a lot of cash; the NHS doesn't have it because the Treasury doesn't have it... It would require the UK economy to improve dramatically... It won't. Or they could increase taxes, particularly for the wealthy, but they won't do that, as it would upset their donors – and higher taxes aren't why the donors put them in power... So… it won't happen. ScoobytheDog 'Nothing really new here' After spending nearly fifty years working in the NHS, I think this all seems to have been said before. So nothing really new here, but the sentiment is a good one. How to deliver it will be the real test. Sparrow 'Remember Blair's polyclinics?' If Labour don't put in the funding and increase the staffing, this latest NHS plan will fail. Remember Blair's polyclinics, anyone? rcourt130864 'No understanding of cause and effect' There seems to be no vision at all. No understanding of cause and effect. For example, the "food" industry, peddling its processed junk, has made people ill and obese. But rather than tackle the cause, expensive weight-loss drug injections are prescribed. Likewise, the alcohol industry. Either a lack of vision, or the government has been 'bought off' by wealthy pressure groups. Heisenberg97 'The NHS is a public service, not a business' It can work – the basic problem has always been that the NHS was never intended to be a business and cannot be run as one. It is a public service. Before the advent of business management techniques (plied by business consultants), it was the envy of the world as a health service, not measured by being a profitable public company-style business. I worked on this well over 20 years ago. Clinical and non-clinical should be treated separately. Fixed assets should be NHS-owned (not government-owned), giving them control over expansion, upgrades etc. Build a model based on the production side and the service side. The production side is more predictable and can be proactive. In the NHS, you could represent this by likening it to a catalogue of products: tests, scans, standard operations (hip, knee replacements etc.), and all post-operative support can be included as 'products'. The supplier or deliverer of the individual products does not have to be the NHS, but coordination should be through an NHS functional system. The NHS could rent on-site space to a service provider who would, for example, equip an area where scans, x-rays etc. are provided to patients on referral from an NHS-approved doctor on an agreed service contract. I challenge the view that to outsource these services is 'selling off' the NHS. The service side of any operation, on the other hand, is always more reactive (as in any business) and needs skilled resources with the flexibility, training, and tools to provide support to the patient. They need the best resources to handle unclassified 'breakdowns' and set in motion a recovery plan that covers not just fixing the problem, but getting the patient back to normal (or a new normal). This is the NHS's core function and is the public service that we all expect. ArcticFox 'Not a plan, just a wish list' First, it almost certainly isn't a "plan" in the sense that anyone in business would recognise. I bet it is just a wish list of things they want to happen, much like the recently published "Modern Industrial Strategy", lacking any detail as to how it's actually going to be delivered, what the key milestones are, who is going to be responsible, what resourcing and cash is going to be dedicated towards it, and what the measures of success will be. Equally, I doubt there is any delivery structure in place, or transformation programme governance, or anything like that. Second, Labour is going to be out of office come 2028 or 2029 for the next 30 years, and whoever takes over from them will almost certainly tear this plan up. They don't have ten years, and they must know that by now. So honestly, what's the point in publishing a "ten-year plan"? It's just performative at this stage. sj99 The conversation isn't over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking 'log in' on the top right-hand corner of the screen.

'Seek immediate treatment' alert as serious condition linked to jab
'Seek immediate treatment' alert as serious condition linked to jab

Daily Mirror

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mirror

'Seek immediate treatment' alert as serious condition linked to jab

The UK's medicines regulator has warned NHS healthcare staff about an increased risk of a condition affecting the nerves in people who have been vaccinated The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has flagged an increase in risk of a rare neurological disorder following vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Guillain-Barre syndrome, an uncommon but serious illness, requires swift hospitalisation to halt its progress. Symptoms generally emerge first in the limbs and can impair sensation, movement, respiration and heart function. Following a connection between 21 suspected instances of Guillain-Barre syndrome in adults aged 60 or older with the Pfizer-produced Abrysvo and GSK's Arexvy vaccines, the MHRA has sent out a drug warning about the RSV inoculations. ‌ Despite this concern, the Commission on Human Medicines maintains that "the benefits of vaccination against RSV outweigh the small risk of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome in older adults". ‌ The MHRA said: "Healthcare professionals should advise all recipients of Abrysvo and Arexvy that they should be alert to signs and symptoms of Guillain-Barre syndrome and, if they occur, to seek immediate medical attention as it requires urgent treatment in hospital." The agency cautioned healthcare workers to stay vigilant for indications of the syndrome and added that, as of now, there is no perceived heightened threat of Guillain-Barre syndrome post-vaccination in expectant mothers using Abrysvo, which remains the sole permitted RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The RSV vaccine aids in safeguarding against the respiratory syncytial virus, a condition that can severely affect older adults and infants. In babies, RSV can lead to bronchiolitis, causing breathing difficulties, while in older individuals, it can result in pneumonia, both potentially necessitating hospitalisation. ‌ Currently, the NHS offers Pfizer's RSV vaccine Abrysvo to adults aged 75 to 79 and pregnant women. The GSK RSV vaccine Arexvy is not presently available on the NHS, but it may be accessible privately within the UK. Guillain-Barre syndrome symptoms can manifest as tingling sensations, numbness or pins and needles in the hands and feet, muscle weakness, and joint movement difficulties. Other symptoms might include breathing problems, sagging facial muscles, or issues with swallowing or speaking. As of June 2, the MHRA has received 21 Yellow Card reports of suspected Guillain-Barre syndrome in older adults (aged 75-79 where known) following the administration of Abrysvo. This is in the context of over 1.9 million doses of Abrysvo being administered, according to the agency. During the same period, the MHRA has not received any Yellow Card reports of suspected Guillain-Barre syndrome following the use of Arexvy, although this vaccine has seen very limited usage in the UK so far. A study conducted in the US suggested that Abrysvo and Arexvy were linked to nine and seven excess cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome per million vaccine doses administered, respectively.

Regulator warns of small risk of serious condition in people having RSV jab
Regulator warns of small risk of serious condition in people having RSV jab

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Regulator warns of small risk of serious condition in people having RSV jab

The medicines regulator has issued a warning to NHS health staff about a small increased risk of a rare condition affecting the nerves in people vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Guillain-Barre syndrome is a rare but serious condition which needs urgent treatment in hospital to prevent it progressing. It can affect people's senses, movement, breathing and heartbeat – usually starting in the arms and legs before spreading to other areas. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued a drug alert for the Abrysvo (made by Pfizer) and Arexvy (GSK) vaccines for RSV after they were linked to 21 suspected cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome in adults aged 60 and over. However, the Commission on Human Medicines still advises that 'the benefits of vaccination against RSV outweigh the small risk of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome in older adults'. In its alert, the MHRA said: 'Healthcare professionals should advise all recipients of Abrysvo and Arexvy that they should be alert to signs and symptoms of Guillain-Barre syndrome and, if they occur, to seek immediate medical attention as it requires urgent treatment in hospital.' It warned staff to be alert to the signs and symptoms of the syndrome. It added that there is currently no evidence of an increased risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome in pregnant women following vaccination with Abrysvo, the only RSV vaccine approved for use during pregnancy. The RSV vaccine helps protect against respiratory syncytial virus, which can make older adults and babies seriously ill. RSV can cause bronchiolitis in babies which can cause breathing problems, while it can cause pneumonia in older people, both of which may require hospital stays. The Pfizer RSV vaccine Abrysvo is currently offered on the NHS to adults aged 75 to 79 and to pregnant women. The GSK RSV vaccine Arexvy is not currently available on the NHS but may be available privately in the UK. Symptoms of Guillain-Barre syndrome can include tingling, numbness or pins and needles in feet and hands, muscle weakness and difficulty moving joints. There may also be problems breathing and drooping face muscles or trouble swallowing or speaking. Up to June 2, the MHRA has received 21 Yellow Card reports of suspected Guillain-Barre syndrome in older adults (aged 75-79 where known) following Abrysvo. This is in the context of over 1.9 million doses of Abrysvo administered, it said. Over the same time period, the MHRA has not received any Yellow Card reports of suspected Guillain-Barre syndrome following Arexvy, however there has been very limited use of this vaccine in the UK to date. In the US, one study suggested Abrysvo and Arexvy were associated with nine and seven excess Guillain-Barre syndrome cases per million vaccine doses administered, respectively.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store