Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review

Br J Gen Pract. 2024 Sep 26;74(747):e674-e682. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2023.0149. Print 2024 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Access to GP appointments is increasingly challenging in many high-income countries, with an overstretched workforce and rising demand. Various access systems have been developed and evaluated internationally.

Aim: To systematically consolidate the current international evidence base related to different types of GP access systems.

Design and setting: Scoping review examining international literature.

Method: Literature searches were run across relevant databases in May 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screenings were carried out. Data from included studies were extracted and mapped to synthesise the components and aims within different GP access systems.

Results: In total, 49 studies were included in the review. The majority of these were set in the UK. Some access systems featured heavily in the literature, such as Advanced Access, telephone triage, and online consultations, and others less so. There were two key strategies adopted by systems that related to either changing appointment capacity or modifying patient pathways. Components related to these strategies are summarised and illustrated as a schematic representation. Most rationales behind access systems were practice, rather than patient, focused. 'Add-on' systems and aims for efficiency have become more popular in recent years.

Conclusion: This synthesis provides a useful tool in understanding access systems' aims, design, and implementation. With focus on alleviating demand, patient-focused outcomes appear to be underinvestigated and potentially overlooked during design and implementation. More recently, digital services have been promoted as offering patient choice and convenience. But a context where demand outweighs resources challenges the premise that extending choice is possible.

Keywords: appointments and schedules; general practice; primary health care.

Publication types

  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Appointments and Schedules*
  • General Practice* / organization & administration
  • Health Services Accessibility*
  • Humans
  • United Kingdom

Grants and funding

This study is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (reference: NIHR133620). Catherine Pope is an NIHR senior investigator. Sue Ziebland is an NIHR senior investigator emerita The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.