ArticleBMC family practice2014
Understanding "revolving door" patients in general practice: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- What are we missing? Reflections on the 'problem' of missed appointments in the UK.NIHR open research · 2026Article
- Social and Ethical Aspects of Remote and Hybrid Care in the Special Allocation Scheme in general practice (SEARCH): A mixed methods feasibility study protocol.NIHR open research · 2025Article
- Understanding the causes of missingness in primary care: a realist review.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- The voice of the self: a typology of general practitioners' emotional responses to situational and contextual stressors.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Revolving door phenomenon in a headache center among patients with chronic headache and medication overuse.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2018Article
- Demographic and practice factors predicting repeated non-attendance in primary care: a national retrospective cohort analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background'Revolving door' patients in general practice are repeatedly removed from general practitioners' (GP) lists. This paper reports a qualitative portion of the first mixed methods study of these marginalised patients.
methodsWe conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with six practitioner services staff and six GPs in Scotland, utilizing Charmazian grounded theory to characterise 'revolving door' patients and their impact from professionals' perspectives.
results'Revolving door' patients were reported as having three necessary characteristics; they had unreasonable expectations, exhibited inappropriate behaviours and had unmet health needs. A range of boundary breaches were reported too when 'revolving door' patients interacted with NHS staff.
conclusionsWe utilise the 'sensitising concepts' of legitimacy by drawing on literature about 'good and bad' patients and 'dirty work designations.' We relate these to the core work of general practice and explore the role that medical and moral schemas have in how health service professionals understand and work with 'revolving door' patients. We suggest this may have wider relevance for the problem doctor patient relationship literature.
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.