Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

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

Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: development and validation of a complexity measure

Chris Salisbury, Sarah Lay-Flurrie, Clare Bankhead, Alice Fuller, Mairead Murphy, Barbara Caddick, Jose Ordóñez-Mena, Tim Holt, Brian D Nicholson, Rafael Perera and FD Richard Hobbs
British Journal of General Practice 22 December 2020; BJGP.2020.0486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486
Chris Salisbury
1 Centre for Academic Primary Care, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk
Sarah Lay-Flurrie
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clare Bankhead
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alice Fuller
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mairead Murphy
3 Centre for Academic Primary Care, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara Caddick
3 Centre for Academic Primary Care, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose Ordóñez-Mena
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim Holt
4 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian D Nicholson
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rafael Perera
4 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FD Richard Hobbs
2 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: The complexity of general practice consultations may be increasing and vary in different settings. Testing these hypotheses requires a measure of complexity. Aim: To develop a valid measure of general practice consultation complexity applicable to routine medical records. Design: Delphi study to select potential indicators of complexity followed by cross-sectional study to develop and validate a complexity measure. Setting: English general practices. Method: An online Delphi study over two rounds involved 32 general practitioners to identify potential indicators of consultation complexity. The cross-sectional study used an age-sex stratified random sample of 173,130 patients and 725,616 general practice face-to-face consultations from 2013/14 in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We explored independent relationships between each indicator and consultation duration using mixed effects regression models, and revalidated findings using data from 2017/18. We assessed the proportion of complex consultations in different age-sex groups. Results: After two rounds, the Delphi panel endorsed 34 of 45 possible complexity indicators. In the cross-sectional study, after excluding factors because of low prevalence or confounding, 17 indicators were retained. Defining complexity as the presence of any of these factors, 308,370 consultations (42.5%) were complex. Mean duration of complex consultations was 10.49 minutes, compared to 9.64 minutes for non-complex consultations. The proportion of complex consultations was similar in men and women but increased with age. Conclusion: Our consultation complexity measure has face and construct validity. It may be useful for research, management and policy, informing decisions about the range of resources needed in different practices.

  • Clinical (general)
  • Diagnosis
  • International
  • Clinical (physical)
  • Cancer
  • Education and standards
  • Patient safety
  • Research methods
  • Epidemiology
  • Received May 21, 2020.
  • Accepted November 13, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

Online First

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.
Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: development and validation of a complexity measure
(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
Accepted Manuscript
Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: development and validation of a complexity measure
Chris Salisbury, Sarah Lay-Flurrie, Clare Bankhead, Alice Fuller, Mairead Murphy, Barbara Caddick, Jose Ordóñez-Mena, Tim Holt, Brian D Nicholson, Rafael Perera, FD Richard Hobbs
British Journal of General Practice 22 December 2020; BJGP.2020.0486. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Accepted Manuscript
Measuring the complexity of general practice consultations: development and validation of a complexity measure
Chris Salisbury, Sarah Lay-Flurrie, Clare Bankhead, Alice Fuller, Mairead Murphy, Barbara Caddick, Jose Ordóñez-Mena, Tim Holt, Brian D Nicholson, Rafael Perera, FD Richard Hobbs
British Journal of General Practice 22 December 2020; BJGP.2020.0486. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0486
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
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Clinical (general)
  • Diagnosis
  • International
  • Clinical (physical)
  • Cancer
  • Education and standards
  • Patient safety
  • Research methods
  • Epidemiology

More in this TOC Section

  • Matching depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: results of the Target-D randomised controlled trial
  • Time from presentation to pre-diagnostic chest X-ray in patients with symptomatic lung cancer: a cohort study using electronic patient records from English primary care
  • Orthopaedic corticosteroid injections and risk of acute coronary syndrome: a cohort study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

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
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

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 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

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