Cited by 114Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Investigating the relationship between consultation length and patient experience: a cross-sectional study in primary care

Open access
Elmore, Natasha, Burt, Jenni, Abel, Gary, Maratos, Frances A, Montague, Jane, Campbell, John, Roland, Martin·2016·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Longer consultations in primary care have been linked with better quality of care and improved health-related outcomes. However, there is little evidence of any potential association between consultation length and patient experience. AIM: To examine the relationship between consultation length and patient-reported communication, trust and confidence in the doctor, and overall satisfaction. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of 440 videorecorded consultations and associated patient experience questionnaires from 13 primary care practices in England. METHOD: Patients attending a face-to-face consultation with participating GPs consented to having their consultations videoed and completed a questionnaire. Consultation length was calculated from the videorecording. Linear regression (adjusting for patient and doctor demographics) was used to investigate associations between patient experience (overall communication, trust and confidence, and overall satisfaction) and consultation length. RESULTS: There was no evidence that consultation length was associated with any of the three measures of patient experience (P >0.3 for all). Adjusted changes on a 0-100 scale per additional minute of consultation were: communication score 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.20 to 0.25), trust and confidence in the doctor 0.07 (95% CI = -0.27 to 0.41), and satisfaction -0.14 (95% CI = -0.46 to 0.18). CONCLUSION: The authors found no association between patient experience measures of communication and consultation length, and patients may sometimes report good experiences from very short consultations. However, longer consultations may be required to achieve clinical effectiveness and patient safety: aspects also important for achieving high quality of care. Future research should continue to study the benefits of longer consultations, particularly for patients with complex multiple conditions.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp16x687733

Cites

41 of 41 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21]Roland M Campbell J Burt J Improving patient experience in primary care: a multi-method programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience final report. NIHR Journals Library 2016 in press. 28654227
  2. [37]Campbell J Smith P Nissen S The GP Patient Survey for use in primary care in the National Health Service in the UK — development and psychometric characteristics BMC Fam Pract 2009 10 57 19698140 PMC2736918

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elmore, N., Burt, J., Abel, G., Maratos, F. A., Montague, J., Campbell, J., & Roland, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Derby (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2016-10-24
Volume
66
Issue
653
Pages
e896-e903
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2536263250
Cited by
114
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 14
FWCI
18.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Derby Online Research Archive. (University of Derby) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0608-10050)
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0608-10050)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
consultation time, patient experience, primary care, physician-patient communication, trust in physicians, patient satisfaction, general practitioners, quality of care
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, 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