Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37161565›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2023

The coding of telephone consultations in UK primary care databases: are we picking up all the calls?

Mark D Atkinson, Roxanne Cooksey, Jenna K Jones, Sinead Brophy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Mark D AtkinsonNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales. m.atkinson@swansea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4237-3588
Roxanne CookseyNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales.
Jenna K JonesSwansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales.
Sinead BrophyNational Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Referral and ConsultationHumansPandemicsPrimary Health CareTelephoneUnited KingdomElectronic health recordGeneral practitionerTelephone consultation

Identifiers

PMID37161565
PMCPMC10169291

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.