Primary care transformation in Scotland: a comparison two cross-sectional national surveys of general practitioners’ views in 2018 and 2023 - Donaghy, E; Sweeney, KD; Lauren, Ng; Haines, Holly; Thompson, Alexandra; Henderson, D; Wang, HHX; Thompson, A; Guthrie, B; Mercer, SW (medRxiv, 2024)
Objectives The new general practitioner (GP) contract for Scotland, introduced in 2018, established GP Clusters and expanded multidisciplinary team (MDT) working. This paper compares the views of GPs in Scotland regarding the new contract, their working lives, and career intentions in 2018 and 2023.Methods Cross-sectional postal survey of all qualified GPs in Scotland in late 2023 exploring views on Cluster working, MDT-expansion, their working lives, and career intentions, compared with a similar survey from 2018.Results Job pressure was significantly higher in 2023 than 2018, but overall job satisfaction and negative job attributes were unchanged, while positive job attributes improved. More GPs were planning to reduce their hours and leave direct patient care in 2023 than 2018.Quality leads views on Cluster working were unchanged, with 70-80% reporting insufficient support in both surveys. Cluster knowledge and engagement was unchanged but all GPs showed small but significant increases in understanding of quality improvement. Most felt MDT expansion was insufficient to reduce workload and fewer GPs reported giving longer consultations for complex patients in 2023 than 2018. Significantly more practices were trying to recruit GPs in 2023, and GPs reported worsening NHS services, higher workload, and lower practice sustainability. Only 1 in 20 GPs in the 2023 survey thought that the new contract had improved the care of patients with multimorbidity.Conclusions GPs report few improvements in working life five years after the new contract was introduced, and are responding by planning to reduce their hours or leave direct patient care.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded through a research grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (reference: ES/T014164/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales REC 6 research ethics committee (reference: 21/WA/0078), and research and development approval from participating Scottish Health Boards.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript