Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24267858›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013

The content of general practice consultations: cross-sectional study based on video recordings.

Chris Salisbury, Sunita Procter, Kate Stewart, Leah Bowen, Sarah Purdy, Matthew Ridd, Jose Valderas, Tom Blakeman, David Reeves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Discussions about physical activity in general practice: analysis of video-recorded consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Review
  15. GP working time and supply, and patient demand in England in 2015-2022: a retrospective study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sunita Procter
Kate Stewart
Leah Bowen
Sarah Purdy
Matthew Ridd
Jose Valderas
Tom Blakeman
David Reeves

Funding

Department of Health NIHR/CS/010/024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDemographic and policy changes appear to be increasing the complexity of consultations in general practice.

aimTo describe the number and types of problems discussed in general practice consultations, differences between problems raised by patients or doctors, and between problems discussed and recorded in medical records. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional study based on video recordings of consultations in 22 general practices in Bristol and North Somerset.

methodConsultations were examined between 30 representative GPs and adults making a pre-booked day-time appointment. The main outcome measures were number and types of problems and issues discussed; who raised each problem/issue; consultation duration; whether problems were recorded and coded.

resultsOf 318 eligible patients, 229 (72.0%) participated. On average, 2.5 (95% CI = 2.3 to 2.6) problems were discussed in each consultation, with 41% of consultations involving at least three problems. Seventy-two per cent (165/229) of consultations included problems in multiple disease areas. Mean consultation duration was 11.9 minutes (95% CI = 11.2 to 12.6). Most problems discussed were raised by patients, but 43% (99/229) of consultations included problems raised by doctors. Consultation duration increased by 2 minutes per additional problem. Of 562 problems discussed, 81% (n = 455) were recorded in notes, but only 37% (n = 206) were Read Coded.

conclusionConsultations in general practice are complex encounters, dealing with multiple problems across a wide range of disease areas in a short time. Additional problems are dealt with very briefly. GPs, like patients, bring an agenda to consultations. There is systematic bias in the types of problems coded in electronic medical records databases.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsVideo RecordingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24267858
PMCPMC3809428

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.