- Clare Grant, clinical lecturera,
- Ruth Nicholas, research associatea,
- Laurence Moore, senior research fellowb,
- Chris Salisbury (c.salisbury{at}bristol.ac.uk), senior lecturera
- a Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Bristol BS6 6JL
- b Cardiff School of Social Sciences, University of Cardiff, Cardiff CF10 3WT
- Correspondence to: C Salisbury
- Accepted 4 April 2002
Abstract
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.
What is already known on this topic
What is already known on this topic Assessment of the quality of care provided by walk-in centres is an important part of their overall evaluation
The one previous study to assess quality in this setting reported negative findings but was methodologically flawed
Standardised patients are a valid and reliable method of assessment of quality of clinical care
What this study adds
What this study adds Walk-in centres perform adequately and safely compared to general practice and NHS Direct for the range of conditions under study
Footnotes
-
Funding This research was conducted independently by the University of Bristol, funded by the Department of Health. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.
-
Competing interests None declared.
- Accepted 4 April 2002
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: The comforts of spiritualism
Published 23 May 2012
Re: The hardest thing: admitting error
Published 23 May 2012
Ice cream headache as a new example of “Cold headache” in Avicenna’s manuscript
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial seriesCommentary: Larger trials are needed
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Testing athletes, and banning those who take drugs, is unjustifiable
Published 23 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (6 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32