Patient Survey on Nonurgent GP appointments, Gloucestershire

Download (PDF 677KB)

Summary of report content

In February 2017 Healthwatch Gloucestershire completed a report following a survey of patient experiences of accessing non-urgent GP Appointments. The survey began in December 2016 and ran until mid-January 2017. It was available online and open to anyone in Gloucestershire. The survey contained questions about patients’ experiences, opinions, preferences and priorities. In total, there were 131 responses. Detailed results are provided in section 4 of the report on a question-by-question basis. Their survey focused on the following areas: • Long waits for non-urgent appointments • Being able to see named GP • Pressure on GP resources • Emergency appointments • Patient responses to the survey were in broad agreement with both the feedback which Healthwatch Gloucestershire has received and the findings of national surveys into patient priorities. Conclusion: The findings from the survey supports much of the intelligence already known by the health system, but draws out some key elements around perceived acceptable waits for GP appointments together with the importance of continuity, particularly in the case of Long-term Conditions. It is hoped that these issues will be taken into consideration in the future planning processes for the County. No provider responses were included in this report.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Patient Survey on Nonurgent GP appointments, Gloucestershire
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Gloucestershire
Date of publication 
Thursday, 2 February, 2017
Date evidence capture began 
Monday, 12 December, 2016
Date evidence capture finished 
Sunday, 1 January, 2017
Type of report 
Patient experience
Key themes 
Booking appointments
Quality of appointment
Waiting times and lists for treatment
Other information of note about this report 
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
Not applicable
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
GP practice
Out of hours
NHS 111
Secondary care services 
Minor injuries unit
Urgent and emergency care services 
NHS 111
Other services 
NHS choices
Patient transport

Details about conditions and diseases

Conditions or diseases 
Types of long term conditions 
Asthma or long-term chest problem

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
All people 18 and over
Other population characteristics 
People who are geographically isolated
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Does the information include staff's views? 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.