title: Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  General practices in England have been encouraged to introduce Advanced Access, but there is no robust evidence that this is associated with improved access in ways that matter to patients.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare priorities and experiences of patients consulting in practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patient questionnaire survey.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-seven practices in 12 primary care trust areas of England.
  
  
  METHODS
  Questionnaire administered when patients consulted.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of 12,825 eligible patients, 10,821 (84%) responded. Most (70%) were consulting about a problem they had had for at least 'a few weeks'. Patients obtained their current appointment sooner in Advanced Access practices, but were less likely to have been able to book in advance. They could usually see a doctor more quickly than those in control practices, but were no more satisfied overall with the appointment system. The top priority for patients was to be seen on a day of choice rather than to be seen quickly, but different patient groups had different priorities. Patients in Advanced Access practices were no more or less likely to obtain an appointment that matched their priorities than those in control practices. Patients in both types of practice experienced problems making contact by telephone.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patients are seen more quickly in Advanced Access practices, but speed of access is less important to patients than choice of appointment; this may be because most consultations are about long-standing problems. Appointment systems need to be flexible to accommodate the different needs of different patient groups.
authors: Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol. c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk
authors: Chris
authors: C
authors: Salisbury
authors: Stephen
authors: S
authors: Goodall
authors: Alan A
authors: AA
authors: Montgomery
authors: D Mark
authors: DM
authors: Pickin
authors: Sarah
authors: S
authors: Edwards
authors: Fiona
authors: F
authors: Sampson
authors: Lucy
authors: L
authors: Simons
authors: Val
authors: V
authors: Lattimer
mesh_terms: D001071:Appointments and Schedules; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D004739:England; D005194:Family Practice / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D005260:Female; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006297:Health Services Accessibility / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D020380:Needs Assessment; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
references: BMJ. 2003 Feb 1;326(7383):258
references: 12560279
references: Br J Gen Pract. 2007 Aug;57(541):608-14
references: 17688754
references: Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004 Jan;30(1):15-24
references: 14738032
references: Br J Gen Pract. 2004 May;54(502):334-40
references: 15113514
references: Fam Med. 2004 May;36(5):341-5
references: 15129381
references: Fam Pract Manag. 2004 May;11(5):35-8
references: 15162609
references: Soc Sci Med. 1998 Nov;47(10):1573-88
references: 9823053
references: Fam Pract. 1999 Feb;16(1):4-11
references: 10321388
references: Pediatrics. 2005 Jul;116(1):82-7
references: 15995036
references: Med J Aust. 2005 Jul 18;183(2):101-3
references: 16022626
references: BMC Fam Pract. 2005 Sep 27;6:39
references: 16188036
references: Fam Pract. 2006 Apr;23(2):233-9
references: 16364952
references: Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Oct;56(531):743-8
references: 17007703
references: Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Dec;56(533):918-23
references: 17132379
references: JAMA. 2003 Feb 26;289(8):1042-6
references: 12597761