• Evaluating a primary care counseling service: outcomes and issues.

      Greasley, Peter; Small, Neil A. (2005)
      This paper reports an evaluation of a counselling service that was introduced into 20 general practices within Bradford City Primary Care Trust. Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) Assessment and End of Therapy forms were used to record referral and attendance information along with problems identified and demographic information about clients. There was a large disparity in the number of referrals across practices illustrating a range of influences on take-up of the service. Levels of attrition from referral for counselling to commencing were relatively high (188 invitations: 89 took up counselling). A longitudinal evaluation of outcomes was conducted using the CORE outcome measure and the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire. Data was collected at the beginning of counselling, at six months and at 12 months follow-up. We found some indication of positive change relating to severity of problems and ability to engage in social activities. However, evaluators should be aware that high attrition rates can create problems in achieving statistical reliability in contexts where overall population numbers are relatively small and/or the time for data collection is relatively short. In light of the recent growth of counselling within primary care, and the need to evaluate these services, the issues encountered in setting up this counselling service, and in seeking to evaluate it, may be instructive to others. Focus groups with counsellors and practice staff explored the benefits and problems in providing the service within practices.
    • Providing welfare advice in general practice: Referrals, issues and outcomes

      Greasley, Peter; Small, Neil A. (2009-12-14)
      General practices in the UK are increasingly hosting welfare advice services on their premises to address patients' social and economic needs. In this paper, the authors present the outcomes of a service providing welfare advice across 30 general practices in inner-city Bradford. A retrospective study of all patients referred for advice during the initial 24 months of the project was conducted. The following information was collected: patient demographics, source of referrals, advice issues raised and income generated through benefit claims. The advice workers saw 2484 patients dealing with over 4000 welfare advice issues. Demand for the service varied widely across practices, reflecting practice list size and engagement with the service by practice staff. The main source of referrals was general practitioners (28%), and disability-related welfare benefits constituted the largest category of advice issues. Sixty-nine per cent of patients seen for advice were of south Asian ethnic origin. The advice workers raised £2 389 255 in welfare benefit claims for patients, primarily through disability-related benefits. Approximately one in four patients referred for advice benefited financially. It is concluded that the service is an excellent strategy by which primary care organisations address the social, economic and environmental influences on the health of their population.