Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29150473›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Patient-level and practice-level factors associated with consultation duration: a cross-sectional analysis of over one million consultations in English primary care.

Sarah Stevens, Clare Bankhead, Toqir Mukhtar, Rafael Perera-Salazar, Tim A Holt, Chris Salisbury, F D Richard Hobbs, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Trends in clinical workload in UK primary care 2005-2019: a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. It's about time: redesigning consultation length in general practice.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Factors associated with potentially missed acute deterioration in primary care: cohort study of UK general practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Quality improvements of safety-netting guidelines for cancer in UK primary care: insights from a qualitative interview study of GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  17. A method for measuring continuity of care in day-to-day general practice: a quantitative analysis of appointment data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-8455
Clare BankheadNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Toqir MukhtarNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rafael Perera-Salazar
Tim A HoltNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4378-3960
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/01/52Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesConsultation duration has previously been shown to be associated with patient, practitioner and practice characteristics. However, previous studies were conducted outside the UK, considered only small numbers of general practitioner (GP) consultations or focused primarily on practitioner-level characteristics. We aimed to determine the patient-level and practice-level factors associated with duration of GP and nurse consultations in UK primary care. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional data were obtained from English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to data on patient deprivation and practice staffing, rurality and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) achievement.

participants218 304 patients, from 316 English general practices, consulting from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. ANALYSIS: Multilevel mixed-effects models described the association between consultation duration and patient-level and practice-level factors (patient age, gender, smoking status, ethnic group, deprivation and practice rurality, number of full-time equivalent GPs/nurses, list size, consultation rate, quintile of overall QOF achievement and training status).

resultsMean duration of face-to-face GP consultations was 9.24 min and 5.32 min for telephone consultations. Nurse face-to-face and telephone consultations lasted 9.70 and 5.73 min on average, respectively. Longer GP consultation duration was associated with female patient gender, practice training status and older patient age. Shorter duration was associated with higher deprivation and consultation rate. Longer nurse consultation duration was associated with male patient gender, older patient age and ever smoking; and shorter duration with higher consultation rate. Observed differences in duration were small (eg, GP consultations with female patients compared with male patients were 8 s longer on average).

conclusionsSmall observed differences in consultation duration indicate that patients are treated similarly regardless of background. Increased consultation duration may be beneficial for older or comorbid patients, but the benefits and costs of increased consultation duration require further study.

Indexed as

Time FactorsAge FactorsAppointments and SchedulesCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleOffice VisitsPractice Patterns, Nurses'Practice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareSex FactorsWorkloadhealth policyorganisation of health servicesprimary carequality in health care

Identifiers

PMID29150473
PMCPMC5701995
OpenAlexW2769487819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.