Patient satisfaction with GP services in England has collapsed, research finds
Patients' satisfaction with GP services has collapsed in recent years as family doctors have switched to providing far fewer face-to-face appointments, new research has revealed.
The proportion of patients seeing a GP in person has plummeted from more than four-fifths (80.7%) in 2019 to just under two-thirds (66.2%) last year.
Telephone appointments have almost doubled over the same period from 13.4% to 25.4%. Those undertaken by video or online, including some in which patients fill in an online form but have no direct interaction with a GP, have risen almost eightfold from 0.6% to 4.6%.
The Institute for Government (IFG) thinktank also found patients valued face-to-face appointments so highly that they regarded them as more important than their GP surgery offering more appointments overall by maximising the number provided remotely.
They are more satisfied with practices that offer more in-person sessions, and less satisfied with those relying more on telephone and remote consultations, even though those free GPs up to see more patients.
The dramatic shift in how family doctors interact with patients has coincided with a huge fall in public satisfaction with GP services.
'Patient satisfaction is higher in practices that deliver more of their appointments face to face,' according to an IFG report tracking the performance of England's 6,200 GP surgeries since 2019. Surgeries that offer the most remote appointments have experienced the biggest falls in satisfaction, the IFG analysis shows.
Practices where in-person appointments remain common are also better at managing diseases such as asthma and diabetes, managing smoking and obesity, and providing check-ups to spot illness early, such as health screening and blood pressure checks, the thinktank found.
Remote ways of providing care to patients that became commonplace as Covid-19 hit in 2020, which were widely thought at the time to be temporary, have become established ways of doing so at many GP surgeries, even though patients prefer traditional face-to-face appointments.
Surveys have found that patients' satisfaction with GP services has fallen dramatically over recent years. Only 31% of people in Britain are satisfied with GP services, and just 23% with GP waiting times, the recent British Social Attitudes survey found.
Silver Voices, a not-for-profit campaign group for over-60s, said GP care should not be reduced to 'intermittent telephone conversations' and that the lack of face-to-face appointments undermined Wes Streeting's repeated pledge to 'bring back the family doctor'.
Dennis Reed, the group's director, said: 'Older patients are particularly affected by more remote consultations as we are more likely to be living with multiple conditions which require personal examination, rather than the need to just treat immediate symptoms.
'Many older patients are also uncomfortable about discussing intimate issues remotely, and the risks of misdiagnosis therefore increases.'
Ministers should legislate to give patients a legal right to an in-person appointment, he said.
GP leaders responded to the IFG's conclusions by stressing that surgeries were so overstretched that remote appointments were needed to help them keep up with the growing demand for care.
Prof Kamila Hawthorne, the chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: 'We recognise that many patients want to see their GP face to face and the majority of GP appointments are carried out face to face – 64% in February. However, we also know that many patients appreciate the convenience of remote appointments, which can be delivered safely and securely with virtual technologies or over the phone.
'The unfortunate reality is that general practice today is totally overstretched. Patient need for GP care and services continues to outstrip resources following years of neglect and underfunding by successive governments.
'GPs and our teams are now delivering more appointments than ever before – 367m last year, more than a million per day – but with just a handful of more qualified GPs than in 2019.'
Stuart Hoddinott, a senior researcher at the IFG and co-author of the Nuffield Foundation-funded report, said the relentless demand for care and shortage of GPs meant patients should not expect in-person appointments to return to pre-Covid levels.
He said: 'The pandemic-era shift to providing many more appointments remotely can explain some – though not all – of the collapse in patient satisfaction.
'Although patients, especially those over 65, seem to prefer face-to-face appointments overall, the need to deliver ever more appointments to cope with demand in the system makes a return to pre-pandemic levels of face-to-face appointments unlikely.'
The report, which was based on analysis of a range of official data about GP services, also found that:
There are too few full-time GPs for the health secretary to fulfil his promise to 'bring back the family doctor', and that is unlikely to change in the years ahead.
The government's policy of pushing GPs to offer more appointments may not be 'wise' because GPs will respond by providing more remotely – which patients dislike.
GP appointment times will need to be extended from 10 to 15 minutes if Streeting is to deliver his pledge to shift the NHS from a treatment to much more of an illness prevention service.
If GPs shift to being more preventive in their work, that might reduce the number of appointments they can offer, because patients will need more time to discuss their health.
The Department of Health and Social Care insisted that patients who wanted an in-person consultation should get one.
A spokesperson said: 'GP services are buckling after years of neglect but through our plan for change, we are working with GPs to fix the front door of the NHS and bring back the family doctor. By cutting red tape and investing more in our NHS, we have recruited more than 1,500 GPs to deliver more appointments.
'This government is also clear that patients should have access to health and care when they need it and people who prefer a face-to-face appointment should have one.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
25 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reeves announces £6 billion to provide millions of NHS tests and procedures
The announcement comes after the Chancellor put NHS funding at the heart of her spending review on Wednesday, raising its budget in a move worth £29 billion a year. This comes, however, at the expense of other areas of public spending. The new £6 billion funding will help to meet the Government's target of reducing NHS waiting lists in England, the Chancellor claimed. 'Over a decade of underinvestment from the previous government put the NHS on its knees, with people across the country unable to get the care they need. We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around,' Ms Reeves said. She added: 'Part of our record investment will deliver four million tests, scans and procedures, so hard-working people can get the healthcare they and their families need. 'There is no strong economy without a strong NHS, and we'll deliver on our Plan for Change to end the hospital backlog, improve living standards and get more money in people's pockets.' The latest spending commitment will help patients get access to diagnostic scans and treatment in places such as shopping centres and high streets, speeding up their diagnoses. The Government hopes this will help to cut NHS waiting lists, meeting Labour's goal of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: 'Since taking office we have been relentless in our drive to cut waiting times for patients, delivering over 3.6 million extra elective care appointments and reducing the overall waiting list by over 200,000. 'The £6 billion investment we are announcing today will generate millions more vital diagnostic tests, scans and procedures for patients across the country.' On Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after giving the NHS a 3% annual increase in funding at the spending review. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during a visit to St Thomas' Hospital in London, following the spending review (Carl Court/PA) Some health leaders are, however, sceptical that the Government will meet its target, despite the funding boost provided at the spending review. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all health organisations, warned 'difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29 billion won't be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it'. He added: 'So, on its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the King's Fund charity, said: 'The Chancellor said she wants the public to have an NHS there when they need it. 'It is hard to see how all the things she mentions: faster ambulance times, more GP appointments, and adequate mental health services and more can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this additional funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines, which are currently being negotiated, and covering staff pay deals.'
Western Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Reeves announces £6 billion to provide millions of NHS tests and procedures
New scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres are among the things which the additional cash will pay for, with the aim of providing up to four million more tests and procedures over the next five years. The announcement comes after the Chancellor put NHS funding at the heart of her spending review on Wednesday, raising its budget in a move worth £29 billion a year. This comes, however, at the expense of other areas of public spending. The new £6 billion funding will help to meet the Government's target of reducing NHS waiting lists in England, the Chancellor claimed. 'Over a decade of underinvestment from the previous government put the NHS on its knees, with people across the country unable to get the care they need. We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around,' Ms Reeves said. She added: 'Part of our record investment will deliver four million tests, scans and procedures, so hard-working people can get the healthcare they and their families need. 'There is no strong economy without a strong NHS, and we'll deliver on our Plan for Change to end the hospital backlog, improve living standards and get more money in people's pockets.' The latest spending commitment will help patients get access to diagnostic scans and treatment in places such as shopping centres and high streets, speeding up their diagnoses. The Government hopes this will help to cut NHS waiting lists, meeting Labour's goal of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: 'Since taking office we have been relentless in our drive to cut waiting times for patients, delivering over 3.6 million extra elective care appointments and reducing the overall waiting list by over 200,000. 'The £6 billion investment we are announcing today will generate millions more vital diagnostic tests, scans and procedures for patients across the country.' On Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after giving the NHS a 3% annual increase in funding at the spending review. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during a visit to St Thomas' Hospital in London, following the spending review (Carl Court/PA) Some health leaders are, however, sceptical that the Government will meet its target, despite the funding boost provided at the spending review. Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all health organisations, warned 'difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29 billion won't be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it'. He added: 'So, on its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the King's Fund charity, said: 'The Chancellor said she wants the public to have an NHS there when they need it. 'It is hard to see how all the things she mentions: faster ambulance times, more GP appointments, and adequate mental health services and more can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this additional funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines, which are currently being negotiated, and covering staff pay deals.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
'Life, amidst death, has to continue': Molly Jong-Fast on her new book and watching her mother fade away
BBC Special Correspondent Katty Kay chats with author Molly Jong-Fast about her memoir, How to Lose Your Mother, which tackles the life, legacy, and decline of her mother, Erica Jong. The death of a mother or father is one of the things we don't talk about much in modern life, maybe because it scares us. But it's a universal reality. Nearly all of us will go through it at some point. Molly Jong-Fast is a political commentator and writer for Vanity Fair who has just written a new memoir, How to Lose Your Mother. The book is Jong-Fast's account of her mother and feminist author Erica Jong's descent into dementia, which began the same year that Jong-Fast's husband, professor Matthew Adlai Greenfield, was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. The book is an honest, emotional and at times funny account of how Jong-Fast got through that horrible time. Not only was she handling her mother's cognitive decline, Jong-Fast's stepfather was diagnosed with Parkinson's, the world was dealing with Covid and everyone in her orbit was under one roof, including an elderly dog with his own health problems. These are heavy topics, but we found moments of laughter, too, emblematic of Jong-Fast's style. In her memoir, the author explores lying to her children about their father's health, referring to a growth on his pancreas as a "mass", because, "a 'mass' could be anything – a group of people, a group of blood vessels, a group of cockapoos meeting in Central Park for a cockapoo meetup". I really enjoyed this conversation. Her lessons about handling loss and grief, facing the legacy of her mother's fame and the difficult decisions that come with ageing parents are things I think we can all learn from. Watch (or read) more of our discussion below. Below is an excerpt from our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity. Katty Kay: When my mum died, I remember thinking that I've had training up the wazoo for everything in my life, but nobody's given me the guidebook for this. Nobody's said, as your parents get older, they're going to need their diapers changed or that you're going to need to think about the money – let alone anybody helping you with all of the emotions. I'm so glad you wrote this book to help people, but why is it that we've gotten to this position where something that almost everybody goes through, we're left kind of clueless when it comes to it? Molly Jong-Fast: I think there's a lot of shame about getting older. It's why I talk about being sober all the time; I want to destigmatise alcoholism and that's how I feel about this to a certain extent. People don't want to talk about it. People don't want to get older. It's really scary. It only goes one direction and you can't get off. You don't get to skip birthdays. It's just this endless march towards death and nobody knows what happens after you die. What I think was so interesting about this whole experience was that it gets you into this conversation of: Why are we here? What is the point of all of this? Why are we on this planet and what should we be trying to grab from this human experience before it's too late? KK: Having now gone through the last few years and written this book, do you feel like you have lessons to impart? MJF: Because I got sober at 19, I saw the incredible benefit of being able to look at my experience and show it to other people. I got that if you can go through something and share that experience with someone else, they can be helped by it. It's almost Jungian; there's a collective suffering that can be shared and lessened. The thing that I always try to say, especially with my kids, is to not feel bad about stuff. The rest of the world can make you feel bad, OK? But don't make yourself feel bad about things. The other thing I say to people is to just do the best you can. This is not going to look the way you want it to look. Maybe it will! And that's great, too. But just because things don't look the way you want them to doesn't mean it's not the way it's supposed to look. KK: I think some people looking at what you went through would think 'I couldn't bear that.' But you have lovely moments in the book where you write about taking the kids on spring break because it's spring break. And you have to buy groceries and you have to pick them up from college. And that life – amidst death – has to continue. MJF: There's this funny moment, I don't know if this made it into the book, but my husband and I had this thing where his father died and then, two weeks later, my stepfather's sister died – and we were at the same, very small funeral home in Connecticut. And the people who own the funeral home come up to us and they're like [makes a shocked face]. We saw that it was very dark – it was not a great year – but we saw the humour in it. I do think the wonderful thing – and I think you see this in much worse stories of people who are in camps or the stories of people who are in wars – is that your focus becomes very narrow and everything becomes a binary. You either can do this or you can do that. And there's something very clarifying about the binary, which I don't think is a bad thing. KK: You start in the book by saying you have this incredibly intense relationship with your mother and you're part of her and she's part of you. But it becomes pretty clear that the relationship is complicated and not as close as you had wanted it to be and that your mother had incredibly narcissistic tendencies when you were growing up. I think that, for so many people who go through this process, that makes what you have written even more important, because so many people don't have that loving, easy relationship with their parents, and when that moment comes they feel a terrible sense of guilt. MJF: I would guess that, on average, people have worse relationships with their parents than we think they do. Our generation is just going through this period with these parents who we're losing and there is a sense when I talk to these people that they feel guilty. They're sort of stuck and feeling bad. And I definitely felt guilty. I put this in the book, but my husband's shrink says, 'Sometimes, when you have narcissistic parents, you feel worse that it didn't work out.' KK: What did you feel guilty about when your mother started to get dementia and you made the decision to move her into a home? MJF: In my ideal world, my mother would not be an alcoholic and I would move her into my house and she'd be painting and writing poetry and maybe [be] a little dotty. But she'd live in my house. So, I felt very bad. It was not how I wanted it to go. But I also felt that my feeling bad was a useful thing for people to see. I'm not just doing this because I'm an exhibitionist. I'm doing it because I really do think that when you have a relationship that isn't what you want and then you suffer from it, you don't have to. And I'm saying, 'I did it and you don't have to,' is sort of the goal. –-
