CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 236Emergency and Acute Care StudiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Systems and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost–consequence analysis

Open access
Campbell, John L, Fletcher, Emily, Britten, Nicky, Green, Colin, Holt, Tim A, Lattimer, Valerie, Richards, David A, Richards, Suzanne H, Salisbury, Chris, Calitri, Raff, Bowyer, Vicky, Chaplin, Katherine, Kandiyali, Rebecca, Murdoch, Jamie, Roscoe, Julia, Varley, Anna, Warren, Fiona C, Taylor, Rod S·2014·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61058-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013, at 42 practices in four centres in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for geographical location, practice deprivation, and practice list size, to either GP-led triage, nurse-led computer-supported triage, or usual care. We included patients who telephoned the practice seeking a same-day face-to-face consultation with a GP. Allocations were concealed from practices until after they had agreed to participate and a stochastic element was included within the minimisation algorithm to maintain concealment. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked to allocation, but practice assignment was concealed from the trial statistician. The primary outcome was primary care workload (patient contacts, including those attending accident and emergency departments) in the 28 days after the first same-day request. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN20687662. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 42 practices to GP triage (n=13), nurse triage (n=15), or usual care (n=14), and 20,990 patients (n=6695 vs 7012 vs 7283) were randomly assigned, of whom 16,211 (77%) patients provided primary outcome data (n=5171 vs 5468 vs 5572). GP triage was associated with a 33% increase in the mean number of contacts per person over 28 days compared with usual care (2·65 [SD 1·74] vs 1·91 [1·43]; rate ratio [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·30-1·36), and nurse triage with a 48% increase (2·81 [SD 1·68]; RR 1·48, 95% CI 1·44-1·52). Eight patients died within 7 days of the index request: five in the GP-triage group, two in the nurse-triage group, and one in the usual-care group; however, these deaths were not associated with the trial group or procedures. Although triage interventions were associated with increased contacts, estimated costs over 28 days were similar between all three groups (roughly £75 per patient). INTERPRETATION: Introduction of telephone triage delivered by a GP or nurse was associated with an increase in the number of primary care contacts in the 28 days after a patient's request for a same-day GP consultation, with similar costs to those of usual care. Telephone triage might be useful in aiding the delivery of primary care. The whole-system implications should be assessed when introduction of such a system is considered. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme UK National Institute for Health Research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61058-8

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Campbell JL, Britten N, Green C, et-al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage of patients requesting same day consultations in general practice: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing nurse-led and GP-led management systems (ESTEEM). HTA (in press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 234

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Campbell, J. L., Fletcher, E., Britten, N., Green, C., Holt, T. A., Lattimer, V., Richards, D. A., Richards, S. H., Salisbury, C., Calitri, R., Bowyer, V., Chaplin, K., Kandiyali, R., Murdoch, J., Roscoe, J., Varley, A., Warren, F. C., & Taylor, R. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Campbell, John L
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
384
Issue
9957
Pages
1859-1868
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61058-8
OpenAlex
W1992829832
Cited by
236
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 8
FWCI
29.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (08/53/15)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
telephone triage, general practitioner workload, nurse-led triage, primary care workload, cost-consequence analysis, patient contact, primary care efficiency, nursing workload, emergency department visits, patient satisfaction, patient satisfaction with waiting time
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Referral and Consultation, State Medicine, Telephone, Time Factors, Triage, Cluster Analysis, Workload, Cost Savings, Young Adult, General Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review