Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study found skill mix implementation was challenging due to the inherent complexity of general practice caseloads and was associated with a mix of positive and negative outcome measures.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Imelda McDermott 1, Sharon Spooner 1,*,, Mhorag Goff 1, Jon Gibson 1, Elizabeth Dalgarno 1, Igor Francetic 1, Mark Hann 1, Damian Hodgson 2, Anne McBride 3, Katherine Checkland 1, Matt Sutton 1

1 Institute for Health Policy and Organisation, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
2 Sheffield University Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
3 Institute for Health Policy and Organisation, Alliance Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK
* Corresponding author Email: sharon.spooner@manchester.ac.uk

Principal investigator

Principal investigator

Declared competing interests of authors: Damian Hodgson reports royalties for books published with Taylor & Francis (Abingdon, UK) and academic consultancy fees paid to the University of Sheffield (Sheffield, UK) by Mott MacDonald (Croydon, UK). Katherine Checkland reports that she is a member of the Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Funding Committee (2019–present). Matt Sutton reports that he was a member of the HSDR Funding Committee (2012–21), HSDR POM Committee (2018–21), HSDR Researcher Led Board (2012–16) and HSDR NHS 111 Online Sub-Board (2012–20).

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions