Jones B, Anchors Z, Voss S, Walsh N. Challenges and enablers to implementation of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme in primary care: a qualitative study.
Br J Gen Pract 2024;
74:e315-e322. [PMID:
38228358 PMCID:
PMC11044017 DOI:
10.3399/bjgp.2023.0433]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 01/18/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) was set up to recruit 26 000 additional staff into general practice by 2024, with the aim of increasing patient access to appointments. Despite the potential benefits of integrating ARRS practitioners into primary care, their implementation has not always been straightforward.
AIM
To explore the challenges and enablers to implementation of the ARRS including its impact on primary and secondary care systems.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Qualitative interview study with ARRS healthcare professionals and key professional stakeholders involved in staff education or scheme implementation across three integrated care systems in England.
METHOD
Participants (n = 37) were interviewed using semi-structured individual or paired interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using framework analysis until data saturation occurred.
RESULTS
Using framework analysis, 10 categories were identified. Three were categorised as successes: staff valued but their impact unclear; multiple and certain roles maximise impact; and training hub support. Seven were categorised as challenges: scheme inflexibility; creating a sustainable workforce with career progression; managing scope and expectations; navigating supervision and roadmap progression; infrastructure and integration challenges; ARRS roles impact on wider systems; and tensions and perspectives of existing staff.
CONCLUSION
Most ARRS staff felt valued, but the scheme broadened expertise available in primary care rather than reducing GP burden, which was originally anticipated. Some PCNs, especially those in areas of high deprivation, found it difficult to meet the population's needs as a result of the scheme's inflexibility, potentially leading to greater health inequalities in primary care. Recommendations are proposed to optimise the effective implementation of the primary care workforce model. Further research is required to explore administrative role solutions, further understand the impact of health inequalities, and investigate the wellbeing of ARRS staff.
Collapse