Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24334420›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2014

Acceptability of NHS 111 the telephone service for urgent health care: cross sectional postal survey of users' views.

Alicia O'Cathain, Emma Knowles, Janette Turner, Jon Nicholl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Alicia O'CathainMedical Care Research Unit, The School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield UK.
Emma Knowles
Janette Turner
Jon Nicholl

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2010, a new telephone service, NHS 111, was piloted to improve access to urgent care in England. A unique feature is the use of non-clinical call takers who triage calls with computerized decision support and have access to clinical advisors when necessary. Aim. To explore users' acceptability of NHS 111.

designCross-sectional postal survey.

settingFour pilot sites in England.

methodA postal survey of recent users of NHS 111.

resultsThe response rate was 41% (1769/4265), with 49% offering written comments (872/1769). Sixty-five percent indicated the advice given had been very helpful and 28% quite helpful. The majority of respondents (86%) indicated that they fully complied with advice. Seventy-three percent was very satisfied and 19% quite satisfied with the service overall. Users were less satisfied with the relevance of questions asked, and the accuracy and appropriateness of advice given, than with other aspects of the service. Users who were autorouted to NHS 111 from services such as GP out-of-hours services were less satisfied than direct callers.

conclusionIn pilot services in the first year of operation, NHS 111 appeared to be acceptable to the majority of users. Acceptability could be improved by reassessing the necessity of triage questions used and auditing the accuracy and appropriateness of advice given. User acceptability should be viewed in the context of findings from the wider evaluation, which identified that the NHS 111 pilot services did not improve access to urgent care and indeed increased the use of emergency ambulance services.

Indexed as

HotlinesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAfter-Hours CareAgedAmbulatory CareCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsState MedicineGeneral practiceout-of-hours medical carepatient satisfactiontelephonetriageurgent care.

Identifiers

PMID24334420
PMCPMC3969523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.