TY - JOUR T1 - Authors' response JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 661 LP - 662 DO - 10.3399/bjgp11X606537 VL - 61 IS - 592 AU - Peter Vedsted AU - Frede Olesen Y1 - 2011/11/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/61/592/661.4.abstract N2 - We are grateful for the debate about positive and negative aspects of gatekeeping raised in three responses to our paper,1 and we agree with the important research questions raised in these. First, let us stress that we are strong advocates of the gate-adviser or gatekeeper system, meaning that if any decision-makers will use our paper as an argument for removing the gate-adviser they have simply misunderstood the paper.We want research that contributes to improving a basically good system. All three letters strongly support the need for such research.Our own primary hypothesis is that healthcare planners have used the easy access to the frontline doctor as an excuse for long waiting lists for complicated clinical trajectories. But we also raise the question whether we as GPs have found the correct balance between necessary investigations and the protection of patients against … ER -