ArticleBMJ open2015
Perceptions of healthcare professionals and managers regarding the effectiveness of GP-led walk-in centres in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urgent care centres for reducing the demand on emergency departments: a scoping review of published quantitative and qualitative studies.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Strength in the gap: A rapid review of principles and practices for urgent care centres.Healthcare management forum · 2023Review
- The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.BMJ open · 2019Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to identify the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding the effectiveness and the impact of a new general practitioner-led (GP-led) walk-in centre in the UK.
settingThis qualitative study was conducted in a large city in the North of England. In the past few years, there has been particular concern about an increase in the use of emergency department (ED) services provided by the National Health Service and part of the rationale for introducing the new GP-led walk-in centres has been to stem this increase. The five institutes included in the study were EDs, a minor injuries unit, a primary care trust, a GP-led walk-in centre and GP surgeries.
participantsSemistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare providers at an adult ED, an ED at a children's hospital, a minor injuries unit, a GP-led walk-in centre, GPs from surrounding surgeries and GPs.
results11 healthcare professionals and managers were interviewed. Seven key themes were identified within the data: the clinical model of the GP-led walk-in centre; public awareness of the services; appropriate use of the centre; the impact of the centre on other services; demand for healthcare services; choice and confusion and mixed views (positive and negative) of the walk-in services. There were discrepancies between the managers and healthcare professionals regarding the usefulness of the GP-led walk-in centre in the current urgent care system.
conclusionsParticipants did not notice declines in the demand for EDs after the GP-led walk-in centre. Most of the healthcare professionals believed that the GP-led walk-in centre duplicated existing healthcare services. There is a need to have a better communication system between the GP-led walk-in centres and other healthcare providers to have an integrated system of urgent care delivery.
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.