ArticleBMJ open2016
Effect of a national urgent care telephone triage service on population perceptions of urgent care provision: controlled before and after study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building a performance measurement framework for telephone triage services in Finland: a consensus-making study based on nominal group technique.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Identifying performance indicators to measure overall performance of telephone triage - a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper.European geriatric medicine · 2023Article
- To what extent do callers follow the advice given by a non-emergency medical helpline (NHS 111): A retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the effect of an urgent care telephone service NHS 111 on population perceptions of urgent care.
designControlled before and after population survey, using quota sampling to identify 2000 respondents reflective of the age/sex profile of the general population.
settingEngland. 4 areas where NHS 111 was introduced, and 3 control areas where NHS 111 had yet to be introduced.
participants28 071 members of the general population, including 2237 recent users of urgent care.
interventionNHS 111 offers advice to members of the general population seeking urgent care, recommending the best service to use or self-management. Policymakers introduced NHS 111 to improve access to urgent care. OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in satisfaction with recent urgent care use 9 months after the launch of NHS 111. Secondary outcomes were change in satisfaction with urgent care generally and with the national health service.
resultsThe overall response rate was 28% (28 071/100 408). 8% (2237/28 071) had used urgent care in the previous 3 months. Of the 652 recent users of urgent care in the NHS 111 intervention areas, 9% (60/652) reported calling NHS 111 in the 'after' period. There was no evidence that the introduction of NHS 111 was associated with a changed perception of recent urgent care. For example, the percentage rating their experience as excellent remained at 43% (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.37). Similarly, there was no change in population perceptions of urgent care generally (1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17) or the NHS (0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.05) following the introduction of NHS 111.
conclusionsA new telephone triage service did not improve perceptions of urgent care or the health service. This could be explained by the small amount of NHS 111 activity in a large emergency and urgent care system.
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.