Observational studyBMJ open2018
What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- What patients want from access to UK general practice: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Shared decision making in musculoskeletal pain consultations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.International health · 2020Pooled it
- Implications of skill-mix change in general practice: secondary analysis of data from the GP Patient Survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Factors associated with unmet healthcare needs in patients using Primary Care Access Points for unattached patients in Quebec (Canada).PloS one · 2026Article
- How patients experience nurse-doctor collaborative care at specialist clinics: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Patient perspectives on the role of orthopedic nurse practitioners: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Self-management Support for Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Can patient-reported outcome measures be used to predict consultation needs in patients with psoriasis?: A survey study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Implementation of first episode psychosis intervention in India - A case study in a low-and middle-income country.SSM. Mental health · 2021Article
- Acceptability and perceived utility of different diagnostic tests and sample types for trachoma surveillance in the Bijagos Islands, Guinea Bissau.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2021Article
- Predictive factors of the general public's willingness to be seen and seek treatment from a nurse practitioner in Australia: a cross-sectional national survey.Human resources for health · 2021Article
- Provision of services in primary care for type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study with patients, GPs, and nurses in the East of England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Skill-mix change in general practice: a qualitative comparison of three 'new' non-medical roles in English primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Patient experiences with outpatient care in Hungary: results of an online population survey.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine patient consultation preferences for seeing or speaking to a general practitioner (GP) or nurse; to estimate associations between patient-reported experiences and the type of consultation patients actually received (phone or face-to-face, GP or nurse).
designSecondary analysis of data from the 2013 to 2014 General Practice Patient Survey. SETTING AND
participants870 085 patients from 8005 English general practices. OUTCOMES: Patient ratings of communication and 'trust and confidence' with the clinician they saw.
results77.7% of patients reported wanting to see or speak to a GP, while 14.5% reported asking to see or speak to a nurse the last time they tried to make an appointment (weighted percentages). Being unable to see or speak to the practitioner type of the patients' choice was associated with lower ratings of trust and confidence and patient-rated communication. Smaller differences were found if patients wanted a face-to-face consultation and received a phone consultation instead. The greatest difference was for patients who asked to see a GP and instead spoke to a nurse for whom the adjusted mean difference in confidence and trust compared with those who wanted to see a nurse and did see a nurse was -15.8 points (95% CI -17.6 to -14.0) for confidence and trust in the practitioner and -10.5 points (95% CI -11.7 to -9.3) for net communication score, both on a 0-100 scale.
conclusionsPatients' evaluation of their care is worse if they do not receive the type of consultation they expect, especially if they prefer a doctor but are unable to see one. New models of care should consider the potential unintended consequences for patient experience of the widespread introduction of multidisciplinary teams in general practice.
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.