ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Online data on opening hours of general practices in England: a comparison with telephone survey data.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 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.
- Adherence to guidelines on documentation required for registration to London GP practice websites: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Importance of accessibility and opening hours to overall patient experience of general practice: analysis of repeated cross-sectional data from a national patient survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Extended opening hours and patient experience of general practice in England: multilevel regression analysis of a national patient survey.BMJ quality & safety · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe NHS Choices website (www.nhs.uk) provides data on the opening hours of general practices in England. If the data are accurate, they could be used to examine the benefits of extended hours.
aimTo determine whether online data on the opening times of general practices in England are accurate regarding the number of hours in which GPs provide face-to-face consultations. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional comparison of data from NHS Choices and telephone survey data reported by general practice staff, for a nationally representative sample of 320 general practices (December 2013 to September 2014).
methodGP face-to-face consultation times were collected by telephone for each sampled practice for each day of the week. NHS Choices data on surgery times were available online. Analysis was based on differences in the number of surgery hours (accounting for breaks) and the times of the first and last consultations of the day only between the two data sources.
resultsThe NHS Choices data recorded 8.8 more hours per week than the survey data on average (40.1 versus 31.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.4 to 10.3). This was largely accounted for by differences in the recording of breaks between sessions. The data were more similar when only the first and last consultation times were considered (mean difference = 1.6 hours; 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.3).
conclusionNHS Choices data do not accurately measure the number of hours in which GPs provide face-to-face consultations. They better record the hours between the first and last consultations of the day.
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.