We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
An observational study comparing quality of care in walk-in centres with general practice and NHS Direct using standardised patients.
BMJ : British Medical Journal 2002 June 30
OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of clinical care in walk-in centres with that provided in general practice and by NHS Direct.
DESIGN: Observational study involving assessment of clinicians by standardised patients.
SETTING: 20 walk-in centres, 20 general practices, and 11 NHS Direct sites.
PARTICIPANTS: 297 consultations with standardised patients, 99 in each setting, carried out by professional role players trained to play five clinical scenarios (postcoital contraception, chest pain, sinusitis, headache, and asthma).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were mean scores on consensus derived checklists of essential items for the management of the clinical scenarios. Data were also collected on access to and referral by walk-in centres, general practices, and NHS Direct.
RESULTS: Walk-in centres achieved a significantly greater mean score for all scenarios combined than general practices (difference between groups 8.2, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14.6) and NHS Direct (10.8, 5.5 to 16.1). There was considerable between scenario variation, with walk-in centres performing particularly well on postcoital contraception and asthma scenarios. In contrast to general practices, walk-in centres and NHS Direct referred a higher proportion of patients (26% and 82%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Walk-in centres perform adequately and safely compared with general practices and NHS Direct for the range of conditions under study, but the impact of referrals on workload of other healthcare providers requires further research.
DESIGN: Observational study involving assessment of clinicians by standardised patients.
SETTING: 20 walk-in centres, 20 general practices, and 11 NHS Direct sites.
PARTICIPANTS: 297 consultations with standardised patients, 99 in each setting, carried out by professional role players trained to play five clinical scenarios (postcoital contraception, chest pain, sinusitis, headache, and asthma).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were mean scores on consensus derived checklists of essential items for the management of the clinical scenarios. Data were also collected on access to and referral by walk-in centres, general practices, and NHS Direct.
RESULTS: Walk-in centres achieved a significantly greater mean score for all scenarios combined than general practices (difference between groups 8.2, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14.6) and NHS Direct (10.8, 5.5 to 16.1). There was considerable between scenario variation, with walk-in centres performing particularly well on postcoital contraception and asthma scenarios. In contrast to general practices, walk-in centres and NHS Direct referred a higher proportion of patients (26% and 82%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Walk-in centres perform adequately and safely compared with general practices and NHS Direct for the range of conditions under study, but the impact of referrals on workload of other healthcare providers requires further research.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app