↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Advanced Access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Impact of Advanced Access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study.
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Salisbury, Alan A Montgomery, Lucy Simons, Fiona Sampson, Sarah Edwards, Helen Baxter, Stephen Goodall, Helen Smith, Val Lattimer, D Mark Pickin

Abstract

Case studies from the US suggest that Advanced Access appointment systems lead to shorter delays for appointments, reduced workload, and increased continuity of care. To determine whether implementation of Advanced Access in general practice is associated with the above benefits in the UK. Controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study. Twenty-four practices that had implemented Advanced Access and 24 that had not. Anonymous telephone calls were made monthly to request an appointment. Numbers of appointments and patients consulting were calculated from practice records. Continuity was determined from anonymised patient records. The wait for an appointment with any doctor was slightly shorter at Advanced Access practices than control practices (mean 1.00 day and 1.87 days respectively, adjusted difference -0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.51 to 0.004 days). Advanced Access practices met the NHS Plan 48-hour access target on 71% of occasions and control practices on 60% of occasions (adjusted odds ratio 1.61; 95% CI = 0.78 to 3.31; P = 0.200). The number of appointments offered, and patients seen, increased at both Advanced Access and control practices over the period studied, with no evidence of differences between them. There was no difference between Advanced Access and control practices in continuity of care (adjusted difference 0.003; 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.07). Advanced Access practices provided slightly shorter waits for an appointment compared with control practices, but performance against NHS access targets was considerably poorer than officially reported for both types of practice. Advanced Access practices did not have reduced workload or increased continuity of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Master 8 14%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 53%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Mathematics 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,812,340
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#888
of 4,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,436
of 76,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 76,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.