How can good general practitioner care be achieved?
Open accessAbstract
It has been shown that to provide a high standard of care general practitioners probably need to book consultations at intervals of at least 10 minutes. In this study the maximum list size for which a general practitioner might be expected to provide a high standard of care was determined from calculations of the time spent consulting, based on various consultation rates and list sizes and assuming that consultations were 10 minutes long. If good quality care is to be provided and is to include the range of services suggested in the government's recent green paper average list sizes should probably be no more than 1750, and lower in areas of high demand and high need. In addition to this, minimum standards could be determined for such measures as facilities available in surgeries, practice records, and accessibility of doctors to ensure that basic services were offered by all general practitioners.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 [9]
The Introduction discusses immediate and continuing problems, and the ‘How many patients can a general practitioner look after?’ section discusses consultation duration. Neither compares time spent with patients presenting new problems against time spent on previously discussed problems. Searches for that comparison and for follow-up consultation duration found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Stott NCH, Davis RH. Theexceptonal potential in each primary care consultation.JR Col Gen Pract 1979;29:20-5.
- Donald A. Oasis or beachead. I R Coil Gen Pract 1985;35:558-63.
- Morrell D, Evans M, Morris R, Roland M. The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on clinical content and satisfaction. BrMedJ 1986;292:870-3.
- Roland M, Bartholomew J, Courtenay M, Morris R, Morrell D. The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on verbal communication. BrMedJ 1986;292:874-6.
- Morrell DC, Avery A, Watkins CJ. The management of minor illnesses. Br MedJ 1981;282: 769-71.
- Wilkin D, Metcalfe D. List size and patient contact in general medical practice. Br Med .1 1984;289:1501. (Accepted4 November 1986) on 19 July 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://www.bmj.com/ Br Med J (Clin Res Ed): first published as 10.1136/bmj.294.6565.161 on 17 January 1987. Downloaded from
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries
Deveugele, M., Derese, A., van den Brink-Muinen, A., Bensing, J., & De Maeseneer, J. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7362.472 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
- Authors
- Morrell, D. C., & Roland, M. O.
- Affiliations
- St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
- ORCID
- Roland, M O
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1987-01-17
- Volume
- 294
- Issue
- 6565
- Pages
- 161-162
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2027001144
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 9.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
- Keywords
- general practitioner workload, list size, consultation time, primary care quality, primary care services, consultation rates, practice facilities, practice records, health care demand
- MeSH terms
- Appointments and Schedules, England, Family Practice, Humans, Practice Management, Medical, Quality of Health Care, Time and Motion Studies
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
