Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11458477›Full record

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.

A Bowling, M Bond

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. 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 · 2005
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Has China's Healthcare Reform Reduced the Number of Patients in Large General Hospitals?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Enabling factors for specialist outreach in western KwaZulu-Natal.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2018
    Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A BowlingDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College London Medical School, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF.
M Bond

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

SpecializationAdolescentAdultAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCommunity-Institutional RelationsEnglandFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMedicineMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID11458477
PMCPMC1313974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.