Consequences of the closure of general practices: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Background Two general practices close every week in the UK. Given the pressure on UK general practices, such closures are likely to persist. Yet little is known about the consequences. Closure refers to when a practice ceases to exist, merges, or is taken over. Aim To explore whether practice funding, list size, workforce composition, and quality change in surviving practices when surrounding general practices close. Design and setting A cross-sectional study of English general practices was undertaken, using data from 20162020. Method The exposure to closure for all practices existing on 31 March 2020 was estimated. This is the estimation proportion of a practices patient list that had been through a closure in the preceding 3 years, between 1 April 2016 and 3 March 2019. The interaction between the exposure to closure estimate and the outcome variables (list size, funding, workforce, and quality) was analysed through multiple linear regression, while controlling for confounders (age profile, deprivation, ethnic group, and rurality). Results A total of 694 (8.41%) practices closed. A 10% increase in exposure to closure resulted in 1925.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1675.8 to 2175.4) more patients in the practice with (sic)2.37 (95% CI = (sic)4.22 to (sic)0.51) less funding per patient. While numbers of all staff types increased, there were 86.9 (95% CI = 50.5 to 123.3), 4.3%, more patients per GP. Increases for other staff types were proportionate to increases in patients. Patient satisfaction with services declined across all domains. No significant difference in Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores was identified. Conclusion Higher exposure to closure led to larger practice sizes in remaining practices. Closure of practices changes workforce composition and reduces patient satisfaction with services.