Keywords: General practice; Appointment scheduling; Patient perspective; Participatory research; Primary care access

Background:

Appointment scheduling in general practice is a determinant of patient satisfaction and a component of quality management. Despite its relevance, patients’ experiences with appointment systems have received limited empirical attention. On the initiative of the patient advisory board at the Institute of General Practice and Ambulatory Health Care (iamag), a study was developed to explore appointment scheduling from the patient perspective. To date, little participatory research in primary care has been conducted in Germany.

Research questions:

How do patients experience appointment scheduling in general practice? Where do they perceive a need for improvement?

Method:

This paper-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in general practice waiting rooms in Germany. The questionnaire was developed using a participatory approach involving a patient advisory board of eleven patients with long-standing primary care experience. Development included brainstorming, iterative questionnaire design, pretesting and piloting, in collaboration with researchers and GPs from Witten/Herdecke University and Ruhr University Bochum and medical practice assistants from a practice-based research network.
Data collection took place over one week per practice between October and November 2025. Patients completed the survey anonymously and returned it in a sealed collection box. Each practice received a unique identification code to allow anonymised practice-level analyses and feedback. After manual data entry and plausibility checks, data were analysed descriptively using SPSS, across practices and at practice level.

Results:

A total of 57 practices registered for participation, of which to date? 53 returned completed questionnaires. Overall, 3,616 patients participated , indicating interest among practices and patients. Data analysis is ongoing and final results will be presented at the conference.

Conclusions:

The participatory research approach proved feasible and practice-oriented. Involving patients in key stages of the research process enhanced relevance and acceptance of the study. The findings are expected to provide patient-centred insights to support optimisation of appointment scheduling and quality management in general practice.

Points for discussion:

How transferable are the findings to other health care systems or practice settings with different organisational structures?

How can practice-level feedback from patient surveys be effectively translated into sustainable organisational change?

What role can participatory research approaches play in improving access to care and practice organisation in primary care?