List sizes and use of time in general practice.
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries (2002) · cites this paper as [6]
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
- Butler, J. R., & Calnan, M. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Kent (GB)
- ORCID
- Calnan, M W
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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