Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 13, Number 1 > Pp. 33-39

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pope, C. Articles by Lattimer, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original research

Improving access to primary care: eight case studies of introducing Advanced Access in England

Catherine Pope , Jon Banks ¹, Chris Salisbury ¹, Val Lattimer

School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Southampton, Southampton; ¹ Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Correspondence to: cjp{at}soton.ac.uk

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.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Salisbury Evaluating Open Access: Problems with the Program or the Studies? Ann Intern Med, December 16, 2008; 149(12): 910 - 910. [Full Text] [PDF]