British NHS

Background
UK general practice faces a workforce crisis, with general practitioner (GP) shortages, organisational change, substantial pressures across the whole health-care system and an ageing population with increasingly complex health needs. GPs require lengthy training, so retaining the existing workforce is urgent and important.

Objectives
(1) To identify the key policies and strategies that might (i) facilitate the retention of experienced GPs in direct patient care or (ii) support the return of GPs following a career break. (2) To consider the feasibility of potentially implementing those policies and strategies.

Design
This was a comprehensive, mixed-methods study.

Setting
This study took place in primary care in England.

Participants
General practitioners registered in south-west England were surveyed. Interviews were with purposively selected GPs and primary care stakeholders. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) panel comprised GP partners and GPs working in national stakeholder organisations. Stakeholder consultations included representatives from regional and national groups.

Main outcome measures
Systematic review – factors affecting GPs’ decisions to quit and to take career breaks. Survey – proportion of GPs likely to quit, to take career breaks or to reduce hours spent in patient care within 5 years of being surveyed. Interviews – themes relating to GPs’ decision-making. RAM – a set of policies and strategies to support retention, assessed as ‘appropriate’ and ‘feasible’. Predictive risk modelling – predictive model to identify practices in south-west England at risk of workforce undersupply within 5 years. Stakeholder consultation – comments and key actions regarding implementing emergent policies and strategies from the research.

Results
Past research identified four job-related ‘push’ factors associated with leaving general practice: (1) workload, (2) job dissatisfaction, (3) work-related stress and (4) work–life balance. The survey, returned by 2248 out of 3370 GPs (67%) in the south-west of England, identified a high likelihood of quitting (37%), taking a career break (36%) or reducing hours (57%) within 5 years. Interviews highlighted three drivers of leaving general practice: (1) professional identity and value of the GP role, (2) fear and risk associated with service delivery and (3) career choices. The RAM panel deemed 24 out of 54 retention policies and strategies to be ‘appropriate’, with most also considered ‘feasible’, including identification of and targeted support for practices ‘at risk’ of workforce undersupply and the provision of formal career options for GPs wishing to undertake portfolio roles. Practices at highest risk of workforce undersupply within 5 years are those that have larger patient list sizes, employ more nurses, serve more deprived and younger populations, or have poor patient experience ratings. Actions for national organisations with an interest in workforce planning were identified. These included collection of data on the current scope of GPs’ portfolio roles, and the need for formal career pathways for key primary care professionals, such as practice managers.

Limitations
The survey, qualitative research and modelling were conducted in one UK region. The research took place within a rapidly changing policy environment, providing a challenge in informing emergent policy and practice.

Conclusions
This research identifies the basis for current concerns regarding UK GP workforce capacity, drawing on experiences in south-west England. Policies and strategies identified by expert stakeholders after considering these findings are likely to be of relevance in addressing GP retention in the UK. Collaborative, multidisciplinary research partnerships should investigate the effects of rolling out some of the policies and strategies described in this report.

Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033876 and UKCRN ID number 20700.

Funding
The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

In this paper we examine why risk-based policy instruments have failed to improve the proportionality, effectiveness and legitimacy of healthcare quality regulation in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Rather than trying to prevent all possible harms, risk-based approaches promise to rationalise and manage the inevitable limits of what regulation can hope to achieve by focusing regulatory standard-setting and enforcement activity on the highest priority risks, as determined through formal assessments of their probability and consequences. As such, risk-based approaches have been enthusiastically adopted by healthcare quality regulators over the last decade. However, by drawing on historical policy analysis and in-depth interviews with 15 high-level UK informants in 2013-5, we identify a series of practical problems in using risk-based policy instruments for defining, assessing, and ensuring compliance with healthcare quality standards. Based on our analysis, we go on to consider why, despite a succession of failures, healthcare regulators remain committed to developing and using risk-based approaches. We conclude by identifying several preconditions for successful risk-based regulation: goals must be clear and trade-offs between them amenable to agreement; regulators must be able to reliably assess the probability and consequences of adverse outcomes; regulators must have a range of enforcement tools that can be deployed in proportion to risk; and there must be political tolerance for adverse outcomes.

Background: Recent British National Health Service (NHS) reforms, in response to austerity and alleged 'health tourism, ' could impose additional barriers to healthcare access for non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants. This study explores policy reform challenges and implications, using excerpts from the perspectives of non-EEA migrants and health advocates in London. Methods: A qualitative study design was selected. Data were collected through document review and 22 in-depth interviews with non-EEA migrants and civil-society organisation representatives. Data were analysed thematically using the NHS principles. Results: The experiences of those 'vulnerable migrants' (ie, defined as adult non-EEA asylum-seekers, refugees, undocumented, low-skilled, and trafficked migrants susceptible to marginalised healthcare access) able to access health services were positive, with healthcare professionals generally demonstrating caring attitudes. However, general confusion existed about entitlements due to recent NHS changes, controversy over 'health tourism, ' and challenges registering for health services or accessing secondary facilities. Factors requiring greater clarity or improvement included accessibility, communication, and clarity on general practitioner (GP) responsibilities and migrant entitlements. Conclusion: Legislation to restrict access to healthcare based on immigration status could further compromise the health of vulnerable individuals in Britain. This study highlights current challenges in health services policy and practice and the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in healthcare advocacy (eg, helping the voices of the most vulnerable reach policy-makers). Thus, it contributes to broadening national discussions and enabling more nuanced interpretation of ongoing global debates on immigration and health. Implications for policy makers • Interviews with vulnerable migrants and healthcare advocates indicated issues with confusing or unnecessary administrative demands, gatekeeper communications, and confidentiality/data protection fears within the national context of immigration fears and austerity-related entitlement changes. • Restricting healthcare access based on immigration status could further compromise the health of vulnerable individuals, with consequences for public health equity and social cohesion. Implications for the public This research gives voice to vulnerable migrants, many leaving situations of significant deprivation and danger, who describe their experiences with British National Health Services (NHS). National political discourse, in which non-European immigrants are less deserving or must be prevented from taking advantage, is divisive and one-sided. Findings help broaden the national discussion, enabling more nuanced interpretation of ongoing global debates on migration and health.

In recent years, the healthcare sector has adopted the use of operational risk assessment tools to help understand the systems issues that lead to patient safety incidents. But although these problem-focused tools have improved the ability of healthcare organizations to identify hazards, they have not translated into measurable improvements in patient safety. One possible reason for this is a lack of support for the solution-focused process of risk control. This article describes a content analysis of the risk management strategies, policies, and procedures at all acute (i.e., hospital), mental health, and ambulance trusts (health service organizations) in the East of England area of the British National Health Service. The primary goal was to determine what organizational-level guidance exists to support risk control practice. A secondary goal was to examine the risk evaluation guidance provided by these trusts. With regard to risk control, we found an almost complete lack of useful guidance to promote good practice. With regard to risk evaluation, the trusts relied exclusively on risk matrices. A number of weaknesses were found in the use of this tool, especially related to the guidance for scoring an event's likelihood. We make a number of recommendations to address these concerns. The guidance assessed provides insufficient support for risk control and risk evaluation. This may present a significant barrier to the success of risk management approaches in improving patient safety.