Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24567656›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014

Patient experience and the role of postgraduate GP training: a cross-sectional analysis of national Patient Survey data in England.

Mark Ashworth, Peter Schofield, Stevo Durbaba, Sanjiv Ahluwalia

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Role of GP trainees in improving patient care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Impact of primary care funding on patient satisfaction: a retrospective longitudinal study of English general practice, 2013-2016.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. In celebration of GP education.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  13. Impact of primary care funding on secondary care utilisation and patient outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction in primary care in England: cross-sectional analysis of national patient survey data and prescribing data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  16. Improving the care of adolescents in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Article
  17. Patient experience and GP trainees.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    Article
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.

Mark AshworthDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London School of Medicine;
Peter Schofield
Stevo Durbaba
Sanjiv Ahluwalia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality indicators for primary care focus predominantly on the public health model and organisational measures. Patient experience is an important dimension of quality. Accreditation for GP training practices requires demonstration of a series of attributes including patient-centred care.

aimThe national GP Patient Survey (GPPS) was used to determine the characteristics of general practices scoring highly in responses relating to the professional skills and characteristics of doctors. Specifically, to determine whether active participation in postgraduate GP training was associated with more positive experiences of care. DESIGN AND

settingRetrospective cross-sectional study in general practices in England.

methodData were obtained from the national QOF dataset for England, 2011/12 (8164 general practices); the GPPS in 2012 (2.7 million questionnaires in England; response rate 36%); general practice and demographic characteristics. Sensitivity analyses included local data validated by practice inspections. OUTCOME MEASURES: multilevel regression models adjusted for clustering.

resultsGP training practice status (29% of practices) was a significant predictor of positive GPPS responses to all questions in the 'doctor care' (n = 6) and 'overall satisfaction' (n = 2) domains but not to any of the 'nurse care' or 'out-of-hours' domain questions. The findings were supported by the sensitivity analyses. Other positive determinants were: smaller practice and individual GP list sizes, more older patients, lower social deprivation and fewer ethnic minority patients.

conclusionBased on GPPS responses, doctors in GP training practices appeared to offer more patient-centred care with patients reporting more positively on attributes of doctors such as 'listening' or 'care and concern'.

Indexed as

AccreditationGeneral PracticePhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareContinuity of Patient CareCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, Medical, GraduateEnglandHealth Care SurveysHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPatient SatisfactionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality Indicators, Health CareRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesmedical educationprimary health carequality indicators

Identifiers

PMID24567656
PMCPMC3933833

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.