Abstract
Background Expanding the primary care multi-disciplinary team (MDT) is a key aim of the 2018 Scottish GP contract, and over 3,000 new MDT-staff have been appointed since then.
Aim To explore patients’ views on MDT expansion in primary care in Scotland.
Design and methods Survey of patients aged 18 years and over who had consulted a GP in the previous four weeks, in three population settings (deprived urban (DU), affluent urban (AU) and remote and rural (RR)), followed by 30 semi-structured individual interviews. The survey assessed awareness of five key new MDT roles, and attitudes towards reception signposting. Interviews explored views regarding MDT-care generally.
Results Of the 1,053 survey respondents, most were unaware of the possibility of being offered MDT, rather than GP, consultations, for three out of five roles (69% unaware of link worker appointments; 68% mental health nurse; 58% pharmacist). Reception signposting to MDT was viewed significantly more negatively in DU areas than elsewhere (34% quite or very unhappy vs 21% AU vs 29% RR; p<0.001).
Most of the 30 patients interviewed were accepting of MDT-care, and many reported positive first-hand experiences. Improved access and added expertise were perceived benefits. However, many had reservations about MDT expansion and an overriding preference for holistic, relationship-based GP-care.
Conclusion Four years since the introduction of the new Scottish GP contract, patient awareness of MDT expansion is limited, views on reception signposting mixed, though experiences of MDT-care generally positive. However, patients still want to see a known GP when they feel it is important, and report this as being challenging especially in deprived areas.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Proportionate Review Sub-committee of the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
