<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Flaxman, Penny</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The 10-minute appointment</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Journal of General Practice</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015-11-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">573-574</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3399/bjgp15X687313</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">65</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">640</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In an RCGP news item1 issued to coincide with the publication of the discussion paper Patient safety implications of general practice workload,2 reference is made to the ‘constraints of the standard 10-minute GP–patient consultation’. The paper itself discusses the safety implications of fatigue, and states that individuals are more likely to make mistakes when ‘late’, but there is no mention of the role of the 10-minute appointment.It is implausible that extra funding or staffing in primary care would reduce the number or complexity of the problems which patients …</style></abstract></record></records></xml>