Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31548297›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019

Adherence to guidelines on documentation required for registration to London GP practice websites: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.

Nathan Hodson, Elizabeth Ford, Maxwell Cooper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Toward a universal definition of provider-patient attachment in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2024
    Review
  5. 'Sludge audits' are needed to reduce barriers to care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  6. Reluctance of general practice staff to register patients without documentation: a qualitative study in North East London.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Nathan HodsonUniversity of Leicester, College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology, Leicester.
Elizabeth FordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health.
Maxwell CooperBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Division of Primary Medicine, Brighton.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe most common obstacle to registration with a GP practice in the UK is difficulty presenting proof of address. NHS guidelines stipulate that inability to provide ID or proof of address is not reasonable grounds to refuse registration. Practices may ask patients to present ID/proof of address, but need a policy in case patients cannot.

aimTo find out how many London GP practice websites ask for documentation without a policy for where this cannot be provided and compare how GP practice websites describe the registration process in patient-facing material. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional study of practices from 10 London boroughs (

methodA proforma was piloted and then implemented, recording whether practices 'demanded', 'requested', or 'mentioned' photo ID or proof of address and whether there was a plan for patients without documentation. Text relating to documentation from all 100 practices for registration was subjected to thematic analysis.

resultsOut of 100 practices 75% asked for documentation. The majority of these were 'demanded'. A plan was included for people without documentation in 12% of practice websites. Five themes emerged from analysis of website content: reassuring people without documentation; diverse requirements between practices; conflating administration and treatment; withholding treatment; and immigration and ethnicity.

conclusionMany practice websites breached NHS Standard Operating Principles and possibly the Equalities Act 2010. All practices should create a clear policy for patients who do not have photo ID/proof of address (for example, including a named receptionist), and update their websites accordingly.

Indexed as

DocumentationGeneral PracticeGuideline AdherenceInternetCross-Sectional StudiesEligibility DeterminationHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLondonState Medicineequal rightsgeneral practice websiteshealth services accessibilityhuman rightsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID31548297
PMCPMC6758925

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.