Cited by 23Primary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Services Management and PolicyHealthcare Systems and Challenges

List sizes and use of time in general practice.

Open access
Butler, J R, Calnan, M W·1987·BMJ

Abstract

The claim that list sizes in general practice should continue to fall towards a national average of 1700 patients rests heavily on the assumption that the extra time available to doctors would be used mainly for longer consultations, resulting in better standards of care. Evidence suggests, however, that the time is more likely to be used to increase rates of consultation in surgeries and home visits and to reduce the length of the working week. A national, random sample of 2104 principals in general practice in England and Wales were questioned about their allocation and use of time. The response rate was 67%, and no large biases in response were detected. The smaller their personal list size the less time general practitioners spent on all aspects of their work and the higher their rates of consultation and home visiting. The effects of further reductions in list sizes would be haphazard, being differentially distributed across the range of list sizes. Longer consultations would probably result, but most of the extra time would probably be used in higher rates of consultation in surgeries and home visits and some would be taken as free time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.295.6610.1383

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The size of a doctor's list is not an important determinant of consultation length, except when lists are extremely large or extremely small.

    “The size of a doctor's list is not an important determinant of consultation length, except when lists are extremely large or extremely small.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butler, J. R., & Calnan, M. W.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1987-11-28
Volume
295
Issue
6610
Pages
1383-1386
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1988209177
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 practitioners, time allocation, consultation time, home visits, working week, primary care workload, standard of care, England and Wales
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, England, Family Practice, House Calls, Humans, Office Visits, Time Factors, Wales

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