Why Access Targets Don’t Equal Access: Rethinking How We Measure Primary Care Performance

Why Access Targets Don’t Equal Access: Rethinking How We Measure Primary Care Performance

By Carl Woodroffe, Head of Commercial Ops

Every headline about general practice seems to focus on one number: appointments.
How many are happening and how fast.

But if more appointments automatically meant better access, satisfaction scores wouldn’t be falling while GP activity is rising. The truth is, the NHS is measuring motion, not progress.

Quality of Access isn’t about how many times a patient is seen, it’s about how quickly they get the right answer, from the right clinician, at the right time.  Too often, additional access points are added to a pathway which increases activity and decreases patient satisfaction. 

‍

The limits of “more”

Recent Pulse analysis shows the average patient now has 5.88 GP appointments a year, up from 5.22 in 2018. That’s a significant increase, yet patient satisfaction hasn’t improved.

This data doesn’t show failure; it shows pressure. GPs are doing more, but they’re spending too much of that time chasing information, repeating work, or managing conditions that could have been resolved earlier with specialist input.

It’s not a capacity problem, it’s a connectivity problem.

‍

When access feels like progress

When we talk to GPs, one phrase comes up again and again:

“Patients want to know what’s wrong with them and what hapensing next when we aren’t sure?.”

That sense of movement - of clarity - is what defines a good patient experience.
It doesn’t come from the number of appointments, but from what happens between them.

Imagine being able to get advice from a Specialist in Paediatrics, Cardiology, Acute Medicine, Frailty, Haematology or any Speciality the same day, or even immediately for urgent presentations rather than in days or weeks?

That’s what connected care delivers, access that actually feels like access.

‍

The real metric of success

The NHS has done the hard part by digitising communication.
Now it’s about making those systems work together, so that access targets don’t just count appointments but track resolution.

Because the best indicator of system performance isn’t “how many patients were seen,” it’s “how many didn’t have to wait.”

‍

Connected care isn’t a policy ambition anymore, it’s already working across the country.
Systems using Cinapsis are reducing unnecessary referrals, cutting waits, and improving clinician satisfaction without adding workload.

It’s proof that when clinicians can collaborate instantly, the definition of access changes, from activity to outcome.

Learn more about how connected care is transforming access: www.cinapsis.org

‍