Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1. Factors influencing accreditation and outcomes of the programme. PHC = primary health care
Tables
Serial Survey distribution Date (2021) Responses Percentage increase % 1 Initial 50 surveys 29 April 2 Remaining surveys 11 May 96 3 Reminder 1 18 May 159 65 4 Reminder 2 2 June 189 19 5 RCGP newsletter 23 June 6 Reminder 3 24 June 232 23 7 Total responses 232 RCGP = Royal College of General Practitioners.
Serial Theme Question Total responses, n ‘Yes’ answers, n % 1 Impact on practice Greater understanding of veterans 229 193 84 2 More aware of veterans' needsVery awareAwareSomewhat awareSlightly awareNot at all aware 232 6211838122 27511651 3 Impact of programme on practice (0 no impact–10 significant impact) 231 (mode 5; mean; 5; median 5; standard deviation 2.53) 4 Impact on veteran Age group most likely to engage18–3940–5960–79≥80All equally likely to engage 230 248943668 103919330 5 Veteran awareness of programmeVery awareAwareSomewhat awareSlightly awareNot at all aware 231 638767140 317333117 6 Veteran awareness of veteran-specific priority treatmentVery awareAwareNeutralSome awarenessUnaware 231 675597318 33326328 7 Perceived benefit to veteran of their GP having greater understanding of needsSignificant benefitSome benefitNeutralLittle benefitNo benefit 231 4412246145 19532062 8 Impact of programme on veteran (0 no impact–10 significant impact) 232 (mode 5; mean 5.60; median 6; standard deviation 2.35) 9 Programme management Would recommend accreditation programme 231 228 99 10 Accreditation processVery easyEasyNeutralDifficultVery difficult 232 601165330 26502310 11 Communication with RCGP during accreditation processVery goodGoodNeutralPoorVery poor 230 431275451 19552420.4 Preferred training material (multiple response question)Online moduleFace-to-face courseRCGP veteran-specific newsletterWebsite updatesOther (central resource database or contacts with veteran organisations) 194631801396 842777603 RCGP = Royal College of General Practitioners.
Theme Quantitative results Qualitative findings Integration Programme delivery and implementation Well received by PHC staffEasy to become accreditedUseful information from RCGP, preference for online educational modules No qualitative data N/A, quantitative data provided insight into this area Impact on veteran PHC staff believed veterans aged 40–59 years most likely to engagePHC staff believed veterans were largely unaware of the programme and of veteran-specific priority treatment Greater understanding of veterans needsGreater appreciation of veteran-specific servicesIncreased engagement with PHCSome improvement in help-seeking Important for PHC staff to have an understanding of veteran-specific services to bridge the gap between patient knowledge and services availableQualitative findings expanded on quantitative data about age and how this might affect help-seeking Impact on practice Greater appreciation and awareness of veterans' needs Increased veteran registrationsGreater efforts to code correctlyBetter working environment Becoming aware of veterans' needs has had a positive impact on motivation and commitment to identify veterans Challenges COVID-19Identifying veteransPoor secondary servicesKeeping up to date Identifying veteransPromoting accreditation statusFurther training needs COVID-19 has impacted footfall, subsequently affecting communicating accreditation status to veteranFurther work required outside of PHC to complement veteran-friendly practicesFuture training should be aimed at all PHC staff, not just veteran leads Positive outcomes No quantitative data Increased awareness of veterans' needsGreater understanding of veteran-specific servicesImproved understanding of the priority referral system N/A, qualitative data provided insight into this area N/A = not applicable. PHC = primary health care.
Recommendations 1. Educational provision. To evaluate the current online educational packages and update and improve accordingly. Educational material should target all practice staff. 2. Specific development opportunities for veteran leads. Examples include developing networks across the primary care networks and connecting the veterans leads to their regional Armed Forces Covenant partnership committee. 3. More time to fully assess the impact of the programme. As highlighted in the limitations section, the timing of the study during the COVID-19 lockdown period and the reduced footfall within PHC will have impacted on the results. 4. Identify ways in which to better promote veteran-friendly accreditation. 5. Raise awareness of veteran status in the veteran community. 6. Research. Further studies could target help-seeking and engagement from certain demographic groups such as sex, age, minority groups, and families. 7. There is clear evidence regarding the benefits of the programme to warrant continuation of the project and further funding. PHC = primary health care.
In this issue
The Veteran Friendly Practice accreditation programme: a mixed-methods evaluation
Jump to section
More in this TOC Section
Related Articles
Cited By...
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
