ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001
A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence on bringing specialised care to the primary level-effects on the Quadruple Aim and cost-effectiveness: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004Pooled it
- Trial
- Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Diabetologia · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Trial
- Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Trial
- Randomised controlled trial to compare GP-run orthopaedic clinics based in hospital outpatient departments and general practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Trial
- Design and performance of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint tele-consultations [ISRCTN54264250].BMC family practice · 2002Trial
- The current landscape of Ohio otolaryngologists and associated conditions: a state-level analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Transforming Non-Digital, Clinical Workflows to Detect and Track Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy via a Digital Platform Integrating Artificial Intelligence: Implementation Research.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Integrating dermatologists in primary care: impact on delays, patient and professional experiences.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Community paediatric clinics and their role in supporting developmental outcomes and services for children living in disadvantaged communities.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2024Review
- Examining the key features of specialist health service provision for women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the Global North: a scoping review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Back to the future? Lessons from the history of integrated child health services in England.Future healthcare journal · 2022Article
- Has China's Healthcare Reform Reduced the Number of Patients in Large General Hospitals?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Substituting hospital-based outpatient cardiology care: The impact on quality, health and costs.PloS one · 2019Article
- Enabling factors for specialist outreach in western KwaZulu-Natal.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2018Article
- Shifting hospital care to primary care: An evaluation of cardiology care in a primary care setting in the Netherlands.BMC family practice · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEncouraged by the increased purchasing power of general practitioners (GPs), specialist-run clinics in general practice and community health care settings (known as specialist outreach clinics) have increased rapidly across England. The activities of local commissioning schemes within primary care groups are likely to accelerate this trend.
aimTo evaluate the costs, processes, and benefits of specialists' outreach clinics held in GPs' surgeries, compared with hospital outpatient clinics. DESIGN OF STUDY: A case-referent (comparative) study comparing the characteristics of outreach clinics (cases) with matched outpatient control clinics.
settingThirty-eight outreach clinics, compared with 38 matched outpatient clinics as controls, covering 14 hospital trust areas across England.
methodSelf-administered questionnaires were given to patients in both clinic settings. These covered processes, satisfaction, personal costs, and health status, with postal follow-up at six months to assess health outcomes. Self-administered questionnaires were also given to the specialists and GPs whose clinics were included in the study (individual patient clinical sheet and an attitude questionnaire), practice managers, and trust accountants (process and costs questionnaire). Evaluation of the costs, processes, and benefits of specialist outreach clinics versus hospital outpatient clinics was carried out by comparing questionnaire responses.
resultsIn comparison with outpatients, outreach clinic patients spent less time on the waiting lists for appointments to see the specialist, they had shorter waiting times in clinics, fewer follow-up appointments, and were more likely to be completely discharged after the sampled attendance. Outreach patients were more satisfied than outpatients with the range of clinic process items asked about. Most doctors felt that the outreach clinic was 'worthwhile'. While patients' personal costs were lower in outreach than in outpatients clinics, NHS costs were more expensive per patient in outreach. The benefits of outreach clinics on patients' health status at six months' follow-up were relatively small.
conclusionsOutreach clinics are a means of improving access to specialist services for patients, in addition to improving the efficiency and quality of health care. Most results were similar across specialties and areas. The benefits of the outreach service need to be weighed against their substantially higher NHS costs, in comparison with outpatients clinics. Outreach clinics are unlikely to be financially justifiable for NHS funding given that the impact on patients' health status was small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11458477PMC1313974What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.