Assessing the outcome of making it easier for patients to change general practitioner: practice characteristics associated with patient movements.

BACKGROUND: The government white paper, Promoting better health, suggested that primary health care services should be made more responsive to patient needs and that competition, brought about by the freer movement of patients between practices, could act as a mechanism for improving the quality of the services provided. Policy changes reflecting these aims were introduced with the 1990 contract for general practitioners. AIM: A study was carried out to estimate the volume of patient movement between practices not attributable to a patient's change of address or to a major change in the practice they had left, and to investigate which practice characteristics patients moved towards and which they moved away from when changing general practitioner.
METHOD: Data on 2617 patient movements during June 1991 were collected from five family health services authorities. These patient movements were analysed in relation to data on practice characteristics obtained from family health services authority records.
RESULTS: The estimated volume of movement of patients between practices was small (1.6% of the registered population per year). The majority of movements were between group practices; a quarter of the movements recorded were to single-handed general practitioners. However, the ratio of the number of movements from group practices to single-handed general practitioners compared with those from single-handed general practitioners to group practices was 1.37 (95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.57). In choosing single-handed general practitioners these patients were willing to forgo access to a woman general practitioner, extended services and greater hours of general practitioner availability. Among the subset of movements between group practices, patients were more likely to gain access to a practice nurse, longer surgery hours and a woman general practitioner as a consequence of their move.
CONCLUSION: The scale of patient movement observed did not indicate any substantial mechanism by which the new policy of encouraging consumerist behaviour on the part of primary care users could effect desired changes in primary care practice. Among the patient movements observed, the evidence suggests that when choosing a practice potential patients were not deterred by the fact that a practice was single-handed. The public's perception of the factors contributing to a high quality of service may conflict with the official characterization of good practice and high quality services in primary health care.