Cited by 71Emergency and Acute Care StudiesHealth Services Management and PolicyHealthcare Quality and Management

Has the NHS 111 urgent care telephone service been a success? Case study and secondary data analysis in England

Open access

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the success of the introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) 111 urgent care service and describe service activity in the period 2014–2016. Design: Comparative mixed method case study of five NHS 111 service providers and analysis of national level routine data on activity and service use. Settings and data: Our primary research involved five NHS 111 sites in England. We conducted 356 hours of non-participant observation in NHS 111 call centres and the urgent care centres and, linked to these observations, held 6 focus group interviews with 47 call advisors, clinical and managerial staff. This primary research is augmented by a secondary analysis of routine data about the 44 NHS 111 sites in England contained in the NHS 111 Minimum Data Set made available by NHS England. Results: Opinions vary depending on the criteria used to judge the success of NHS 111. The service has been rolled out across 44 sites. The 111 phone number is operational and the service has replaced its predecessor NHS Direct. This new service has led to changes in who does the work of managing urgent care demand, achieving significant labour substitution. Judged against internal performance criteria, the service appears not to meet some targets such as call answering times, but it has seen a steady increase in use over time. Patients appear largely satisfied with NHS 111, but the view from some stakeholders is more mixed. The impact of NHS 111 on other health services is difficult to assess and cost-effectiveness has not been established. Conclusion: The new urgent care service NHS 111 has been brought into use but its success against some key criteria has not been comprehensively proven.

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/bmjopen-2016-014815

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pope, C., Turnbull, J., Jones, J., Prichard, J., Rowsell, A., & Halford, S.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Pope, Catherine
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-05
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
e014815
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2621322203
Cited by
71
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
7.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
NHS 111, NHS Direct, service evaluation, labor substitution, patient satisfaction, health care delivery, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, England, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, State Medicine, Hotlines, Program Evaluation, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, After-Hours Care

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