Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
George K Freeman a Centre for Primary Care and Social Medicine,
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London W6
8RP, b Royal College of General Practitioners, London SW7
1PU, c Department of General
Practice, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9DX, d Centre for Health Studies, University of Durham, Durham DH1
3HN, e Kilburn Park Medical Centre, London NW6, f Department of
General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester,
Leicester LE5 4PW Correspondence to: G Freeman g.freeman@ic.ac.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In 1999 Shah1 and others said that the Royal College of General Practitioners should advocate longer consultations in general practice as a matter of policy. The college set up a working group chaired by A P Hungin, and a systematic review of literature on consultation length in general practice was commissioned. The working group agreed that the available evidence would be hard to interpret without discussion of the changing context within which consultations now take place. For many years general practitioners and those who have surveyed patients' opinions in the United Kingdom have complained about short consultation time, despite a steady increase in actual mean length. Recently Mechanic pointed out that this is also true in the United States.2 Is there any justification for a further increase in mean time allocated per consultation in general practice?
We report on the outcome of extensive debate among a group of general
practitioners with
Read all Rapid Responses