Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorElmore, N
dc.contributor.authorBurt, J
dc.contributor.authorAbel, G
dc.contributor.authorMaratos, FA
dc.contributor.authorMontague, J
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, J
dc.contributor.authorRoland, M
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-08T16:49:17Z
dc.date.issued2016-11-24
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDepartment of Healthen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 66 (653), pp. e896 - e903en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3399/bjgp16X687733
dc.identifier.grantnumberRP-PG-0608-10050en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/35875
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoyal College of General Practitionersen_GB
dc.rights© British Journal of General Practice 2016, This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectappointments and schedulesen_GB
dc.subjectcommunicationen_GB
dc.subjectgeneral practiceen_GB
dc.subjectphysician–patient relationsen_GB
dc.subjectprimary health careen_GB
dc.titleInvestigating the relationship between consultation length and patient experience: A cross-sectional study in primary careen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-02-08T16:49:17Z
dc.identifier.issn0960-1643
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of General Practiceen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-08-25
exeter.funder::Department of Healthen_GB
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-08-25
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-02-08T16:46:10Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2019-02-08T16:49:20Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.depositExceptionpublishedGoldOA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© British Journal of General Practice 2016,
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © British Journal of General Practice 2016, This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.