Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769775›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Staff perceptions on patient motives for attending GP-led urgent care centres in London: a qualitative study.

Geva Greenfield, Agnieszka Ignatowicz, Shamini Gnani, Medhavi Bucktowonsing, Tim Ladbrooke, Hugh Millington, Josip Car, Azeem Majeed

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 'Clinically unnecessary' use of emergency and urgent care: A realist review of patients' decision making.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Geva GreenfieldDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Agnieszka IgnatowiczDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Shamini GnaniDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Medhavi BucktowonsingLondon Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative, London, UK.
Tim LadbrookeLondon Central and West Unscheduled Care Collaborative, London, UK.
Hugh MillingtonCharing Cross Hospital Emergency Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Josip CarLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Global eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-9858
Imperial College London · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBNanyang Technological University · SGUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGeneral practitioner (GP)-led urgent care centres were established to meet the growing demand for urgent care. Staff members working in such centres are central in influencing patients' choices about which services they use, but little is known about staff perceptions of patients' motives for attending urgent care. We hence aimed to explore their perceptions of patients' motives for attending such centres.

designA phenomenological, qualitative study, including semistructured interviews. The interviews were analysed using thematic content analysis.

setting2 GP-led urgent care centres in 2 academic hospitals in London.

participants15 staff members working at the centres including 8 GPs, 5 emergency nurse practitioners and 2 receptionists.

resultsWe identified 4 main themes: 'Confusion about choices', 'As if increase of appetite had grown; By what it fed on', 'Overt reasons, covert motives' and 'A question of legitimacy'. The participants thought that the centres introduce convenient and fast access for patients. So convenient, that an increasing number of patients use them as a regular alternative to their community GP. The participants perceived that patients attend the centres because they are anxious about their symptoms and view them as serious, cannot get an appointment with their GP quickly and conveniently, are dissatisfied with the GP, or lack self-care skills. Staff members perceived some motives as legitimate (an acute health need and difficulties in getting an appointment), and others as less legitimate (convenience, minor illness, and seeking quicker access to hospital facilities).

conclusionsThe participants perceived that patients attend urgent care centres because of the convenience of access relative to primary care, as well as sense of acuity and anxiety, lack self-care skills and other reasons. They perceived some motives as more legitimate than others. Attention to unmet needs in primary care can help in promoting balanced access to urgent care.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareAttitude of Health PersonnelEmergency Service, HospitalMotivationAcademic Medical CentersAmbulatory Care FacilitiesGeneral PractitionersHumansLondonNurse PractitionersQualitative ResearchACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINEPRIMARY CAREQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26769775
PMCPMC4735149
OpenAlexW1950225387

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.