total_score

priority_purpose_score

reusable_accessible_score

consistency_accuracy_score

everyday_work_score

measurement_improvement_score

GP Communication Workload Questionnaire

Individual Practice - under 8,000 patients

Individual Practice - 8,000 to 12,000 patients

Individual Practice - over 12,000 patients

0 - Not yet identified: We have not identified which topics lead to the most repeated calls, messages, appointments or staff conversations.

1 - Staff recognise some common topics: Staff can name some topics they often have to explain, but there is no agreed or prioritised list.

2 - Some priority topics have been identified: We have identified several topics that create repeated work, but the list is incomplete or not regularly reviewed.

3 - Priority topics are clearly identified: We keep an agreed list of the topics most likely to create repeated work, patient uncertainty, safety concerns or missed steps in care.

0 - It varies greatly: The explanation mainly depends on the staff member, the time available and whether the patient asks further questions.

1 - Basic information is usually given: Patients normally receive a brief explanation, but the next step, timescale or point at which they should seek further help may be unclear.

2 - Clear explanations exist in some areas: Several important services or care processes have clear explanations, but this is not yet consistent across the practice.

3 - Patients are routinely given clear next steps: For priority areas, patients are clearly told what the decision means, what they need to do next, what happens afterwards and when they should contact the practice again.

0 - Most common information is explained from scratch: Staff repeatedly explain the same subjects during appointments, calls or individually written messages.

1 - A small amount of reusable information exists: We use a small number of templates, links, leaflets or standard messages, but staff still recreate many common explanations.

2 - Reusable information covers several common topics: We have reusable explanations for a number of common needs, but some important needs are not yet covered.

3 - Staff can reuse approved information for priority topics: The parts of priority explanations that are the same for most patients have been turned into approved resources that staff can use repeatedly.

0 - Patients mainly rely on memory or general information: Patients often have to remember what they were told or are directed to long or general information without a clear next step.

1 - Written information is sometimes provided: Patients may receive a leaflet, webpage, link or text message, but the format and level of detail vary, and it may not always be clear what they should do next.

2 - Clear information is available in some key areas: For several important topics, patients can revisit information that is easy to understand and usually explains what they need to do next.

3 - Information is designed for understanding and action: For priority topics, patients receive clear information in suitable and accessible formats. This may include structured video supported by written text. The information explains what to do next and when to seek further help.

0 - Explanations vary greatly: Patients may receive different information, levels of detail or advice depending on who they speak to.

1 - Staff usually understand the main message: Staff generally know what patients should be told, but there is no agreed structure or standard explanation.

2 - Some explanations are standardised: Templates, scripts or approved resources help staff give consistent information in selected areas.

3 - There is a clear minimum standard: Approved explanations make sure patients receive the same important information, while still allowing staff to personalise it when needed.

0 - Ownership is unclear: Information has built up over time, and it may be unclear who approved it, whether it is still accurate or when it should be reviewed.

1 - Information is updated when problems are noticed: Staff make changes when something appears wrong or outdated, but there is no consistent review process.

2 - Some important resources have clear owners: Certain resources have named clinical or operational owners, but this is not yet consistent across the practice.

3 - Important information has clear owners and review dates: Priority resources have a named owner, are clinically approved, are kept up to date and are reviewed at agreed times.

0 - Staff have to remember for themselves: Useful information may exist, but staff have to remember to find and send it themselves.

1 - It depends on individual staff habits: Some staff use helpful information regularly, but use varies across the team.

2 - Prompts or agreed steps exist in some processes: Templates, prompts or agreed steps help staff send the right information at certain points.

3 - Staff know what to send at each priority step: For important care and administrative processes, staff know what information to send, when to send it and what the patient should do next.

0 - Information is scattered or difficult to find: Resources may be stored in different places, and staff often rely on memory, personal wording or their own saved links.

1 - Some resources are easy to find: Staff know where certain information is kept, but finding the correct or latest version may take time.

2 - Key resources are clearly organised: Important resources are stored in a shared and organised place, although some areas remain unclear or need improvement.

3 - Staff can find the right resource quickly and confidently: Approved resources are clearly organised, easy to search or linked to the relevant process, and staff can quickly identify the correct current version.

0 - We do not currently check: We do not measure whether patient information is helping people take the right next step or reducing repeated work.

1 - We rely mainly on comments and individual examples: We use staff impressions, patient comments or individual cases to judge whether communication is effective.

2 - We track some relevant measures: We monitor selected measures such as use of resources, appointment attendance, repeat contacts, completed actions or patient feedback.

3 - We regularly review whether communication changes what happens: We use agreed measures to check whether patient information improves patient action, reduces repeated work or helps patients complete the next step in their care.

0 - Each case is dealt with separately: Staff solve the immediate problem, but the information or process usually stays the same.

1 - Changes are made occasionally: Messages or resources may be changed after a complaint or repeated problem, but there is no regular improvement process.

2 - Repeated problems sometimes lead to changes: When a pattern becomes clear, teams may improve the explanation, resource or process.

3 - Improvement is built into the system: We regularly identify repeated communication problems, improve the information or process and check whether the change worked.