OBJECTIVE: To examine the implementation of 'Advanced Access' as a means of improving access to primary care. METHODS: Qualitative case studies of eight English general practices undertaken as part of a mixed method study. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the interpretation and implementation of Advanced Access. Practices claiming to operate this system often did not follow its key principles. Differences between practice access systems centred on the use of 'same-day' appointments. The association of Advanced Access with same-day appointment systems was problematic as it both created antagonism to, and diverged from, the Advanced Access model. Practice staff did not necessarily share the conceptualisation of demand that underpinned Advanced Access. Other policies and targets provided further incentives to diverge from the model and these factors were compounded by informal organizational behaviours, notably the exercise of discretion, which led to adaptation. CONCLUSION: Advanced Access was diluted because it became confused with same-day appointment systems and other incentives and targets. Its guiding philosophy of 'manageable demand' appeared counter-intuitive to staff in the context of general practice, which made its implementation problematic. As a result, the system was adapted and modified.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the implementation of 'Advanced Access' as a means of improving access to primary care. METHODS: Qualitative case studies of eight English general practices undertaken as part of a mixed method study. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the interpretation and implementation of Advanced Access. Practices claiming to operate this system often did not follow its key principles. Differences between practice access systems centred on the use of 'same-day' appointments. The association of Advanced Access with same-day appointment systems was problematic as it both created antagonism to, and diverged from, the Advanced Access model. Practice staff did not necessarily share the conceptualisation of demand that underpinned Advanced Access. Other policies and targets provided further incentives to diverge from the model and these factors were compounded by informal organizational behaviours, notably the exercise of discretion, which led to adaptation. CONCLUSION: Advanced Access was diluted because it became confused with same-day appointment systems and other incentives and targets. Its guiding philosophy of 'manageable demand' appeared counter-intuitive to staff in the context of general practice, which made its implementation problematic. As a result, the system was adapted and modified.
Authors: Hari Balasubramanian; Ritesh Banerjee; Brian Denton; James Naessens; James Stahl Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stephen M Campbell; Evangelos Kontopantelis; David Reeves; Jose M Valderas; Ella Gaehl; Nicola Small; Martin O Roland Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jamie Murdoch; Anna Varley; Emily Fletcher; Nicky Britten; Linnie Price; Raff Calitri; Colin Green; Valerie Lattimer; Suzanne H Richards; David A Richards; Chris Salisbury; Rod S Taylor; John L Campbell Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Fiona MacKichan; Emer Brangan; Lesley Wye; Kath Checkland; Daniel Lasserson; Alyson Huntley; Richard Morris; Peter Tammes; Chris Salisbury; Sarah Purdy Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692