ArticleIrish journal of medical science2013
Establishing a general practitioner led minor injury service: mixed methods evaluation at 10 months with an emphasis on use of radiology by GPs in the out-of-hours setting.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- An analytic observational study on complaints management in the general practice out of hours care setting: who complains, why, and what can we do about it?BMC family practice · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
methodsA mixed methods study was conducted to evaluate a recently established general practitioner (GP) led minor injury (MI) service; it included a patient feedback study, a qualitative enquiry into the experience of the MI GPs, and analysis of use of radiology.
resultsForty-nine (81.6 %) patients surveyed were seen in 30 min or less. Forty-five (75 %) felt that the quality of the service was excellent/very good. Twenty-seven (45 %) responders felt that the X-ray service was expensive; 49 (81.6 %) patients said that they would be happy to use the service again. 271 X-rays were taken (137, 50.55 % upper limb, 95, 35.06 % lower limb, 18, 6.64 % CXR). One hundred and ninety-four (73.48 %) patients were self-financing. There was an 86.72 % (235/271) concordance between GP/radiologist findings. Issues elaborated by MI GPs at the focus group included secondary care/hospital interaction, patients' experience, professional fulfilment, competence concerns, finances, and interest in educational resources; they were unanimous in maintaining the service at 10 months.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates a positive experience by patients, and conservative evaluation of X-rays by GPs.
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.