The GP Patient Survey (GPPS) is being run by the Department of Health to assess patients' experiences of their local NHS services. The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) rewards practices on the basis of the responses of patients to questions on access in GPPS. Not surprisingly, this has proved the most controversial aspect of the new questionnaire. Nevertheless it is the best systematic way that practices have of getting their patients' views, not only on access, but on a whole range of other aspects of care that are important to GPs and their patients, such as continuity of care and inter-personal aspects of care. The earlier survey was generally a survey of patients who had recently seen a GP, and was often distributed by practice staff 'in house'. The 2009 survey is distributed using a national survey organisation, identifying random samples of patients registered with UK general practices. The access questions in the new GP Patient Survey are similar to those used in the DES questionnaire over the past two years, but now the payments have been moved into QOF, thresholds and the payment formula have been changed. Faced with these survey results for the first time, many practices want to know how they can use their own results to look constructively at care in their practices. As a result, Martin Roland, John Campbell, Mary Carter and Sally Brearley have written this enclosed handbook for practices to help them use their own survey results to improve patient care.

As the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) nears the end of its fourth year, it remains controversial. Has it improved quality, or just changed recording habits? Has it improved care or are patients missing out on important aspects of patient care that are not in the QOF? Should exception reporting stay or go? What has the QOF done to health inequalities? In this Spotlight, we review some of the evidence on the impact that QOF has had and make recommendations for how QOF should develop in the future.

This summary of the final report is published by a team of researchers from the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Manchester Business School and the University of Sheffield, Institute for Studies into Ageing, who have conducted an independent national evaluation of the Evercare programme. The final report gives more detailed findings.

Patients want to be treated as consumers of healthcare. They want better information about treatment options and to be more involved in making the decision as to which option to follow. How far patients behave as consumers depends on the severity of their illness, the nature of the procedure involved, and their individual circumstances. Most severely ill patients face complex treatment options and prefer decisions to be made on their behalf by a well informed and trusted healthy professional. Evidence that patients want the opportunity to select a distant hospital for non-urgent surgery is limited to situations where patients face a long wait for a local hospital appointment and where there is a history of poor service. Wealthy and educated populations will be the main beneficiaries of a policy of extending patient choice, unless specific measures are introduced to help disadvantaged groups interpret and make use of information about health care (e.g. league tables). There is no evidence that giving patients greater choice will, in itself, improve the quality of their care. Some studies suggest that increasing choice may result in a deterioration in the quality and cost effectiveness of services.

See NPCRDC research Project Patient Choice

This issue of Spotlight examines the role of primary care within the NHS. It has been written to stimulate discussion and inform the planned White Paper on. Your care, your choice, your say. It represents the views of senior staff at the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, informed by our own research and reviews of the literature.

As part of the new GP contract,GPs are required to undertake patient surveys. Quality points will be awarded for this and the action taken in response to survey results.  This handbook is a guide for GPs and practice staff on the best way to conduct surveys,how to understand and interpret results and how to use the results to improve  all aspects of general practice.

Spotlight - NPCRDC's research on Improving care in general practice through clinical governance

The aim of this handbook, published in its first edition in 2000, is to provide a simple, practical guide to the National Service Framework for Mental Health which was published by the Government in 1999. This guide is mainly for people working in primary care.  

In June 1998, four separate research teams were commissioned by the Department of Health to conduct the National Evaluation of the first wave PMS pilot sites. Each team focused on one or more of seven themes and developed evaluation and data collection me

The aim of this handbook is to provide a simple, practical guide to the National Service Framework for Mental Health which was published by the Government in 1999. This guide is mainly for people working in primary care.

In June 1998, four separate research teams were commissioned by the Department of Health to conduct the National Evaluation of the first wave PMS pilot sites. Each team focused on one or more of seven themes and developed evaluation and data collection me

The Primary Care Clinical Evaluation Project (PRICCE) is a quality improvement programme designed by East Kent Health Authority to increase the quality of clinical care for 13 chronic conditions. Ambitious targets were developed for the care of each condition, and participating practices had to agree to meet these targets in all the clinical areas.

This handbook is for primary care teams and was written to help teams decide where to make a start with clinical governance.

Designed to inform PCGs and others working to introduce clinical governance into general practice.