ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[Characteristics of health care demand in family medicine clinics in a health area of the community of Valencia].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of frailty in older patients using a mobile app: cross-sectional observational study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Observational
- Differences in the management of hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia between obesity classes.Journal of human hypertension · 2016Observational
- Diagnostic inertia in obesity and the impact on cardiovascular risk in primary care: a cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- A cardiovascular educational intervention for primary care professionals in Spain: positive impact in a quasi-experimental study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
- Suitability of antiplatelet therapy in hypertensive patients.Journal of human hypertension · 2015Observational
- Primary health care use from the perspective of gender and morbidity burden.BMC women's health · 2014Observational
- Is the physician's behavior in dyslipidemia diagnosis in accordance with guidelines? Cross-sectional ESCARVAL study.PloS one · 2014Observational
- [Primary care consultations: are they all by the doctor?].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
- [Organizational procedures and health care management. A point of view from primary care centres].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
- [Crisis in family medicine: A bioethical perspective from the routine practice].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- [What should not be done to debureaucratise primary care].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
- [Frequency of attendance and degree of control of type-2 diabetic patients].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure with primary data the kinds of family doctor consultations, the reasons for them and the interruptions.
designObservational, transversal, and multi-centred study.
settingAll the health centres in Area 17 of the Community of Valencia.
participantsRepresentative sample of 2051 patients belonging to 20 family medicine lists at the 13 health centres in the Area, selected by sampling stratified for health centres and randomised by medical key. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: All the activity occurring during the working day was monitored by an outside observer in the consulting room, who recorded the types of consultation (prior appointment, on-demand, scheduled, urgent, at home, by phone or through a family member) and the reasons for them (as a function of their clinical content for acute pathology, chronic pathology or preventive activities, bureaucratic-administrative reasons or to collect test results). The interruptions to the consultation were recorded. The means, percentages and 95% confidence limits were calculated.
resultsWomen occasioned 57.5% (95% CI, 55.4-59.6) of demand; and the elderly, 35.9% (33.6%-38.2%). Mean attendance time was 5.38 +/- 4.45 minutes. 23.6% (25.4%-21.8%) attended without prior appointment; in 14.7% (16.2%-13.2%) a family member attended; 6.6% (7.7%-5.5%) were urgent; and 0.7% (1.1%-0.3%) were telephone consultations. 65.3% (67.4%-63.2%) of consultations were bureaucratic, and preventive measures were taken only in 3.4% (4.2%-2.6%). 21.8% (23.6%-20%) of patients consulted for clinical + bureaucratic reasons; and 35.5% (37.6%-33.4%), solely for bureaucratic reasons. In 12% (13.4%-10.6%) there were interruptions, mainly for phone calls (3.9%).
conclusionThe over-65s caused over a third of all consultations. There was a high attendance without a prior appointment. There were few preventive activities. In consultations, bureaucratic activity takes up more time than clinical activity (care and prevention).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.