Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Consultation length

Denis Pereira Gray and Peter Orton
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (656): 108-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X689509
Denis Pereira Gray
St Leonard’s Research Practice, Exeter. E-mail:
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: denis.pereiragray@btinternet.com
Peter Orton
Research Unit, Aviation Medica, London Stansted Airport, Essex.
Roles: Managing Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Consultation length in general practice has long been seriously under-researched given its central importance. The key issue is serious, as Orton and colleagues show that longer consultations are significantly more patient centred and beneficial for patients1 whereas Elmore and colleagues find no benefit in terms of patient experience from longer consultations.2

Both studies have the advantage of studying substantial numbers of precisely timed consultations, 440 in Elmore and colleagues and 842 in Orton and colleagues. The latter applied an internationally validated instrument for assessing patient-centredness, whereas Elmore and colleagues had the advantage of obtaining patient responses directly.

A weakness in both studies is that they had relatively few consultations lasting 15 minutes or more; only 74 (16.8%) in Elmore and colleagues and 50 (6.1%) in Orton and colleagues. Benefit for patients is likely to be optimised when patients know that they will receive at least 15 minutes and then on average do so, which applied in neither study.

Elmore and colleagues studied practices ‘... below the 25th percentile for mean communication score in the 2009–2010 survey, adjusted for patient case mix’. This group selected for relatively poor communicators probably lacked the consulting skills to give patients a good experience, even with more time. This important limitation was clearly stated in the full version, but did not appear in the two-page printed summary of the article.

We do not believe that results from GPs selected on the grounds of being poor communicators can be generalised. An absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence.

Meanwhile, decisions must be taken by managing partners about how long on average patients’ appointments should be. We confirm that in our two very different research general practices patients receive on average 15 minutes or more (mean 16.1 minutes in St Leonard’s). Further research on consultation length is urgently needed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2017

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Orton PK,
    2. Pereira Gray D
    (2016) Factors affecting consultation length in general/family practice. Fam Pract 33(5):529–534.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Elmore N,
    2. Burt J,
    3. Abel G,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Investigating the relationship between consultation length and patient experience: a cross-sectional study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X687733.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (656)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 656
March 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Consultation length
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Consultation length
Denis Pereira Gray, Peter Orton
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (656): 108-109. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X689509

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Consultation length
Denis Pereira Gray, Peter Orton
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (656): 108-109. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X689509
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • GPs’ understanding of the wider workforce in primary care
  • 2020 vision? A retrospective study of time-bound curative claims in British and Irish newspapers
  • Verschlimmbesserung
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242