This study evaluated whether increases in appointment volume in English primary care were associated with improvements in two value-based metrics: waiting times and patient dissatisfaction. The underlying hypothesis is that higher productivity—measured as output in appointments—should reduce waits and improve patient experience. The analysis assessed associations at the Integrated Care Board (ICB) level across defined time periods using national administrative and survey datasets.
The authors performed a retrospective observational analysis using two publicly available sources: Appointments in General Practice (NHS England) and the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS). Analyses covered data from 2018 through 2024 and focused on two comparison periods at the ICB level: 2018–2022 and 2022–2023. The study examined changes in completed appointments, waiting times, and measures of patient dissatisfaction, and stratified some analyses by staff group (GP vs non-GP) and appointment mode (face-to-face vs virtual).
Across the study interval, completed appointments increased. Concurrently, delivery of primary care shifted away from GPs toward more non-GP staff, and there was a growth in virtual delivery of appointments. These system-level trends provide context for the association analyses but do not by themselves indicate whether changes in output improved the surveyed measures of waiting or patient experience.
When comparing ICB-level changes over 2018–2022, the study reports the following estimates:
These point estimates are small and their confidence intervals include the null for most comparisons, indicating no consistent evidence that higher appointment volume led to shorter waits or meaningful changes in patient dissatisfaction during this period.
For the shorter, more recent period 2022–2023 the reported estimates differ in magnitude and precision:
While the estimate linking more appointments to reduced waiting time reached statistical precision in this period, the broader pattern across outcomes did not demonstrate a clear, consistent pathway from increased output to improved patient-reported experience.
The authors interpret these findings to imply one of two possibilities: either the measured quality metrics (waiting times and patient dissatisfaction) do not respond to changes in the output that providers control (appointment volume), or these metrics do not capture the dimensions of quality that most affect patient experience. Given inconsistent associations across periods and outcomes, the study suggests current performance frameworks that use appointment count, waiting times, and GPPS-based satisfaction measures to assess primary care productivity may need review.
As stated in the source, the work is a retrospective observational study and the article is a medRxiv preprint that has not been certified by peer review; the authors explicitly note it should not be used to guide clinical practice. All source data used are publicly available (Appointments in General Practice and GP Patient Survey), and the authors report that code and constructed crosswalk files are available on request from the corresponding author. The paper includes author declarations that ethical guidelines and participant consents were addressed.
Given the findings, the authors recommend reviewing performance frameworks that equate higher appointment output with improved value as measured by shorter waits and higher patient satisfaction. The study highlights the potential mismatch between administratively measured outputs and patient-centred measures of quality, and it underscores the importance of evaluating whether performance indicators reflect the aspects of care that matter to patients.