The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objectives: To measure quality of care at general practice consultations in diverse geographical areas, and to determine the principal correlates associated with enablement as an outcome measure. Design: Cross sectional multipractice questionnaire based study. Setting: Random sample of practices in four participating regions: Lothian, Coventry, Oxfordshire, and west London. Participants: 25 994 adults attending 53 practices over two weeks in March and April 1998. Main outcome measures: Patient enablement, duration of consultation, how well patients know their doctor, and the size of the practice list. Results: A hierarchy of needs or reasons for consultation was created. Similar overall enablement scores were achieved for most casemix presentations (mean 3.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 3.1). Mean duration of consultation for all patients was 8.0 minutes (8.0 to 8.1); however, duration of consultation increased for patients with psychological problems or where psychological and social problems coexisted (mean 9.1, 9.0 to 9.2). The 2195 patients who spoke languages other than English at home were analysed separately as they had generally higher enablement scores (mean 4.5, 4.3 to 4.7) than those patients who spoke English only despite having shorter consultations (mean 7.1 (6.9 to 7.3) minutes. At individual consultations, enablement score was most closely correlated with duration of consultation and knowing the doctor well. Individual doctors had a wide range of mean enablement scores (1.1-5.3) and mean durations of consultation (3.8-14.4 minutes). Doctors9 ability to enable was linked to the duration of their consultation and the percentage of their patients who knew them well and was inversely related to the size of their practice. At practice level, mean enablement scores ranged from 2.3 to 4.4 and duration of consultation ranged from 4.9 to 12.2 minutes. Correlations between ranks at practice level were not significant. Conclusions: It may be time to reward doctors who have longer consultations, provide greater continuity of care, and both enable more patients and enable patients more. Key messages 38% of practices approached on a random basis in four areas of the United Kingdom collected data for 2 weeks showing the feasibility of surveying the content and outcome of routine consultations in general practice At consultation level, enablement correlates best with the duration of consultations and how well the patient knows the doctor These correlates apply at doctor level as well—more enabling doctors work in smaller practices than less enabling doctors Case mix does not seem to be a determinant of enablement scores, but patients with more complex problems require longer consultations to achieve equal enablement Patterns of duration of consultation and enablement in patients who speak languages other than English are different and require further study
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Empathy Decline and Its Reasons: A Systematic Review of Studies With Medical Students and Residents
Neumann, M., Edelhäuser, F., Tauschel, D., Fischer, M. R., Wirtz, M., Woopen, C., Haramati, A., & Scheffer, C. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318221e615 · Cited by 1,637
Coulter, A. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7212.719 · Cited by 657
Defining and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home
Stange, K. C., Nutting, P. A., Miller, W. L., Jaén, C. R., Crabtree, B. F., Flocke, S. A., & Gill, J. M. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1291-3 · Cited by 516
Physician-Patient Relationship and Medication Compliance: A Primary Care Investigation
Kerse, N. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.139 · Cited by 391
Patient‐oriented learning: a review of the role of the patient in the education of medical students
Spencer, J., Blackmore, D., Heard, S., McCrorie, P., McHaffie, D., Scherpbier, A., Gupta, T. S., Singh, K., & Southgate, L. (2000) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00779.x · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Howie, J. G. R., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., Walker, J. J., Freeman, G. K., & Rai, H.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-09-18
- Volume
- 319
- Issue
- 7212
- Pages
- 738-743
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2077197427
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 43.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.738
- The paper
- Howie, J. G. R., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., Walker, J. J., Freeman, G. K., & Rai, H. (1999). Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.738
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.