↓ Skip to main content

What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 11,436)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
79 news outlets
twitter
47 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018690
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte A M Paddison, Gary A Abel, Jenni Burt, John L Campbell, Marc N Elliott, Valerie Lattimer, Martin Roland

Abstract

To examine patient consultation preferences for seeing or speaking to a general practitioner (GP) or nurse; to estimate associations between patient-reported experiences and the type of consultation patients actually received (phone or face-to-face, GP or nurse). Secondary analysis of data from the 2013 to 2014 General Practice Patient Survey. 870 085 patients from 8005 English general practices. Patient ratings of communication and 'trust and confidence' with the clinician they saw. 77.7% of patients reported wanting to see or speak to a GP, while 14.5% reported asking to see or speak to a nurse the last time they tried to make an appointment (weighted percentages). Being unable to see or speak to the practitioner type of the patients' choice was associated with lower ratings of trust and confidence and patient-rated communication. Smaller differences were found if patients wanted a face-to-face consultation and received a phone consultation instead. The greatest difference was for patients who asked to see a GP and instead spoke to a nurse for whom the adjusted mean difference in confidence and trust compared with those who wanted to see a nurse and did see a nurse was -15.8 points (95% CI -17.6 to -14.0) for confidence and trust in the practitioner and -10.5 points (95% CI -11.7 to -9.3) for net communication score, both on a 0-100 scale. Patients' evaluation of their care is worse if they do not receive the type of consultation they expect, especially if they prefer a doctor but are unable to see one. New models of care should consider the potential unintended consequences for patient experience of the widespread introduction of multidisciplinary teams in general practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Researcher 4 19%
Unspecified 4 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 24%
Unspecified 5 24%
Psychology 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 660. 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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#9,110
of 13,333,056 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#40
of 11,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#536
of 347,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#6
of 581 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,333,056 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 347,341 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 581 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.