Cited by 211Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on clinical content and patient satisfaction.

Open access
Morrell, D C, Evans, M E, Morris, R W, Roland, M O·1986·BMJ

Abstract

An experiment was carried out in which patients who were seeking appointments for a consultation in a general practice in south London attended consulting sessions booked at 5, 7.5, or 10 minute intervals. The particular session that the patient attended was determined non-systematically. The clinical content of the consultation was recorded on an encounter sheet and on audio-tape. At the end of each consultation patients were invited to complete a questionnaire designed to measure satisfaction with the consultation. The stress engendered in doctors carrying out surgery sessions booked at different intervals of time was also measured. At surgery sessions booked at 5 minute intervals, compared with 7.5 and 10 minute intervals, the doctors spent less time with the patients and identified fewer problems, and the patients were less satisfied with the consultation. Blood pressure was recorded twice as often in surgery sessions that were booked at 10 minute intervals compared with those booked at 5 minute intervals. There was no evidence that patients who attended sessions booked at shorter intervals received more prescriptions, were investigated or referred more often to hospital specialists, or returned more often for further consultations within four weeks. There was no evidence that the doctors experienced more stress in dealing with consultations that were booked at 5 minute intervals than at consultations booked at 7.5 and 10 minute intervals, though they complained of shortage of time more often in surgery sessions that were booked at shorter intervals.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.292.6524.870

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Doctors spend more time with patients who have new problems than those with already discussed problems.

    “Doctors spend more time with patients who have new problems than those with already discussed problems.”

    From Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries (2002) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says that whether a consultation concerns a new problem or is a follow-up can affect its duration. It does not say that doctors spend more time on new problems than on previously discussed ones; the reported time comparisons concern appointment-booking intervals instead. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morrell, D. C., Evans, M. E., Morris, R. W., & Roland, M. O.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1986-03-29
Volume
292
Issue
6524
Pages
870-873
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0267-0623
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2031531596
Cited by
211
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
42.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
consultation time, time constraints, patient satisfaction, general practice, blood pressure measurement, drug prescribing, return visits
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, Clinical Competence, Consumer Behavior, Humans, Office Visits, Referral and Consultation, Stress, Physiological, Time Factors

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