ArticleBMC research notes2023
The coding of telephone consultations in UK primary care databases: are we picking up all the calls?
Article in BMC research notes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the use of two coding systems used in the THIN UK primary care research database for the coding of telephone encounters between patient and healthcare professional in primary care. This is relevant to other research databases built on GP clinical systems. Consideration of telephone consultations was particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic as remote interactions between patient and GP are more numerous than before and are likely to remain at a higher frequency.
resultsTelephone encounters could either be indicated by a consultation-type code or by a Read code. All three possible combinations (coded by one method, the other method and both) were in use. In 2014, 30% were coded by the consultation-type, 55% by Read codes and 15% by both. In contrast, in 2000, 77% were coded by the consultation-type, 21% by Read codes and 2% by both. This has important implications because national and regional consultation rates by GPs are often estimated from these research databases by looking only at the consultation-type codes and consequently many encounters will not be detected.
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.