Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26917660›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016

Telephone triage systems in UK general practice: analysis of consultation duration during the index day in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Tim A Holt, Emily Fletcher, Fiona Warren, Suzanne Richards, Chris Salisbury, Raff Calitri, Colin Green, Rod Taylor, David A Richards, Anna Varley and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  8. Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Telephone completion of patient self-reporting health history documents by registered nurses: a survey to evaluate its effectiveness and strategies for improvement.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Unintended consequences of online consultations: a qualitative study in UK primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Tim A HoltNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford.
Emily FletcherExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Fiona WarrenExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Suzanne RichardsExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Chris SalisburyUniversity of Bristol, Bristol.
Raff CalitriExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Colin GreenExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Rod TaylorExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
David A RichardsExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Anna VarleyFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
John CampbellExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.

Funding

Department of Health 08/53/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelephone triage is an increasingly common means of handling requests for same-day appointments in general practice.

aimTo determine whether telephone triage (GP-led or nurse-led) reduces clinician-patient contact time on the day of the request (the index day), compared with usual care. DESIGN AND

settingA total of 42 practices in England recruited to the ESTEEM trial.

methodDuration of initial contact (following the appointment request) was measured for all ESTEEM trial patients consenting to case notes review, and that of a sample of subsequent face-to-face consultations, to produce composite estimates of overall clinician time during the index day.

resultsData were available from 16,711 initial clinician-patient contacts, plus 1290 GP, and 176 nurse face-to-face consultations. The mean (standard deviation) duration of initial contacts in each arm was: GP triage 4.0 (2.8) minutes; nurse triage 6.6 (3.8) minutes; and usual care 9.5 (5.0) minutes. Estimated overall contact duration (including subsequent contacts on the same day) was 10.3 minutes for GP triage, 14.8 minutes for nurse triage, and 9.6 minutes for usual care. In nurse triage, more than half the duration of clinician contact (7.7 minutes) was with a GP. This was less than the 9.0 minutes of GP time used in GP triage.

conclusionTelephone triage is not associated with a reduction in overall clinician contact time during the index day. Nurse-led triage is associated with a reduction in GP contact time but with an overall increase in clinician contact time. Individual practices may wish to interpret the findings in the context of the available skill mix of clinicians.

Indexed as

General PractitionersNursesPrimary Health CareTelephoneTriageAppointments and SchedulesAttitude of Health PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleHumansMaleOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionReferral and ConsultationReview Literature as Topicdelivery of healthcaregeneral practicetelephone/economicstriageworkload

Identifiers

PMID26917660
PMCPMC4758502

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.