CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 195Primary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealthcare Systems and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context

Open access
Freeman, George K, Horder, John P, Howie, John G R, Hungin, A Pali, Hill, Alison P, Shah, Nayan C, Wilson, Andrew·2002·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.324.7342.880PMC PMC101402
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In 1999 Shah 1 and others said that the Royal College of General Practitioners should advocate longer consultations in general practice as a matter of policy.The college set up a working group chaired by A P Hungin, and a systematic review of literature on consultation length in general practice was commissioned.The working group agreed that the available evidence would be hard to interpret without discussion of the changing context within which consultations now take place.For many years general practitioners and those who have surveyed patients' opinions in the United Kingdom have complained about short consultation time, despite a steady increase in actual mean length.Recently Mechanic pointed out that this is also true in the United States. 2 Is there any justification for a further increase in mean time allocated per consultation in general practice?We report on the outcome of extensive debate among a group of general practitioners with an interest in the process of care, with reference to the interim findings of the commissioned systematic review and our personal databases.The review identified 14 relevant papers. Summary pointsLonger consultations are associated with a range of better patient outcomes Modern consultations in general practice deal with patients with more serious and chronic conditions Increasing patient participation means more complex interaction, which demands extra time Difficulties with access and with loss of continuity add to perceived stress and poor performance and lead to further pressure on time Longer consultations should be a professional priority, combined with increased use of technology and more flexible practice management to maximise interpersonal continuity Research on implementation is needed

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.324.7342.880

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Shah, 1999, Viewpoint: Consultation time—time for a change? Still the “perfunctory work of perfunctory men!”, Br J Gen Pract, 49, 497

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–195 of 195

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Freeman, G. K., Horder, J. P., Howie, J. G. R., Hungin, A. P., Hill, A. P., Shah, N. C., & Wilson, A.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Freeman, George K
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-04-13
Volume
324
Issue
7342
Pages
880-882
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.324.7342.880
PMC
PMC101402
OpenAlex
W2151816860
Cited by
195
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
36.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Royal College of General Practitioners
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
consultation time, general practice, primary care, patient outcomes, patient participation, continuity of care, health care access, general practitioners, practice management, health technology, Royal College of General Practitioners
MeSH terms
Family Practice, United Kingdom, Humans, Office Visits, State Medicine, Time Factors, Patient Satisfaction

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