Comparative Analysis of Roles in England and Scotland (COMPARES) v2
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Assessing the impact of different models of integrating new or extended roles into primary care: A comparative analysis of England and Scotland
IRAS ID
351449
Contact name
Imelda McDermott
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Manchester
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 10 months, 31 days
Research summary
We want to compare how England and Scotland employ and use staff in additional roles.
• There are pros and cons of both models, and we want to find out what is working well (or not) in both countries and learn from it. We will start by looking at additional roles that exist in both nations and look at how they are recruited, managed and appraised, what helps or hinders them from fitting in and how this affects their job and the care they provide to patients.
• Patient views have hardly ever been included and patients often don’t know about additional roles staff and say that they would rather see their GPs. But some who have seen these staff are often happy with their care. We also want to understand about patient experiences of being seen by these staff and whether it has improved their ability to get an appointment and improve their overall care.This project will look at:
• The different ways additional roles staff are employed and used in primary care and the impact on the care they give to patients.
• Additional roles staff experiences and their integration into primary care.
• Patient experiences.To answer these questions, we will:
• Interview additional roles staff, GPs, existing GP practice staff and managers in regional organisations.
• Attend staff meetings and training events to understand the support that additional roles staff receive.
• Send out a questionnaire to patients and invite them to do a follow-up telephone (or online) interview. Patients with many healthcare problems and those in different areas have different experiences. We will collect information about where patients live and their health to make sure that we talk to a wide range of patients, including those who sometimes don’t get a good service from the NHS. We will also speak to patients who do not access additional roles staff, those experiencing homelessness, and different migrant populations.REC name
South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
25/SC/0357
Date of REC Opinion
4 Nov 2025
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion