existing staff due to a cultural focus on respecting elders. The experiences of the other practices and NGNs identified in the interviews and survey however, suggests that this was not generally the case. Overall, the scheme had increased connections between the practices, PHOs and DHBs. These increased connections were most likely to be experienced between the PHOs and the practices. The role of the NETP coordinator in the implementation of the scheme however, facilitated connections between some practices and the DHBs. The mid-point survey found that most respondents felt the scheme had increased the connections between the practice and the PHO (62%; n=87)) and increased the connections between the DHB and the practice (53%; n=88). PHO and DHB respondents were more likely to agree that the scheme had increased connections than respondents from the VLCA practices. These increased connections were also noted as individual benefits of the VLCA scheme by DHB and PHO staff in the mid-point survey: “An opportunity to engage with an Iwi provider.” – PHO staff “It has increased my positive working relationship with the PHO by supporting these practices.” NETP Coordinator “Getting to know the practice and practice staff better.” – PHO Staff The mid-point survey suggests that the scheme has helped to secure relationships between practices and PHOs but there were fewer direct links between practices and DHBs, as these relationships tended to be facilitated through the PHO. Some of the practices selected in the site visits were owned by their PHO which made the impact of the scheme on these relationships harder to explore. The other practices involved in the site visits also often had existing relationships with their PHO. The site visit interviews did provide an insight into the impact of the scheme on the relationship between practices and DHBs. For example, one practice suggested that they now had a more positive relationship with the DHB. They suggested that their relationships with the DHB had moved from one of just monitoring practice activities to the practice feeling that they had more traction with the DHB. The increased connections with the DHB had also increased their awareness of the training the DHB offered to primary care staff.
Retention rates were higher for larger practices based on both enrolled population and number of GPs. This reflects some comments that larger practices, or a group of practices, were able to absorb the NGN salary across the business. Enrolled population Retention rate Number of practices <2,000 enrolees 71% 7 2,000-5,000 enrolees 69% 16 5,000-10,000 enrolees 81% 16 10,000+ enrolees 100% 6 Total 78% 45 Number of GPs Retention rate Number of practices 1 GP 67% 3 2-4 GPs 68% 19 5-9 GPs 83% 12 10+ GPs 100% 3 Unknown 88% 8 Total 78% 45 Retention rates were similar for practices that had past experience training NGNs compared to those who were new to the role. Previous NGN Retention rate Number of practices Yes 75% 8 No 78% 37 Total 78% 45 Urban practices were more likely to retain their NGNs than rural practices. This may be related to the smaller sizes of rural practices. Location Retention rate Number of practices Rural 70% 10 Urban 80% 35 Total 78% 45