Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12564280›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003

Walk-in centres in primary care: a review of the international literature.

Chris Salisbury, James Munro

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic review of recent innovations in service provision to improve access to primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Translating 'See-and-Treat' to primary care: opening the gates does not cause a flood.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Effect of Ramadan fasting on emergency walk-in-clinics in Jordan.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Article
  13. Community-based urgent care in Israel and worldwide.Israel journal of health policy research · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stakeholder perceptions of a nurse led walk-in centre.BMC health services research · 2012
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A new direction for NHS community services.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006
    Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Chris SalisburyDivision of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, Bristol BS6 6JL. c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk
James Munro
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nurse-led walk-in centres were first announced in April 1999. They represent a new development in unscheduled care provision in the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). By the end of 2000, 40 NHS walk-in centres had been opened, with further centres recently announced. This paper aims to review international experience with walk-in centres in primary and emergency care and identify relevant lessons for the UK. This study is a systematic review, with qualitative synthesis of relevant findings. Studies were identified from seven major bibliographic databases using a sensitive search strategy, and 244 relevant documents relating to walk-in or 'ambulatory care' centres were identified. Users of walk-in centres in other countries tend to be a relatively affluent population of working age, and a different population from those using conventional general practice services. Walk-in centres are used particularly when other health services are closed. The problems presented are mainly minor illnesses and minor injuries. People choose this form of care mainly for reasons of convenience, and satisfaction with the service is generally high. The very limited evidence available suggests that walk-in centres provide care of reasonable quality, but there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the impact of walk-in centres on other healthcare services or the costs of such care. Although a number of countries have had a long experience of walk-in centres, the lack of reliable evidence on many of the most important issues is notable. In the NHS, walk-in centres represent a radically innovative attempt to improve access to health care, but the limited research available does little to inform their development. Important questions that need to be addressed include whether walk-in centres do improve access to care, for whom, and at what overall cost.

Indexed as

Nurse PractitionersAmbulatory Care FacilitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNurse's RolePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID12564280
PMCPMC1314495
OpenAlexW1880066812

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.