The "five minute" consultation: effect of time constraint on clinical content and patient satisfaction. Study of the effect of time availability on the consultation. Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Health promotion in the general practice consultation: a minute makes a difference.
An experiment was carried out in which patients who were seeking appointments for a consultation in a general practice in south London attended consulting sessions booked at 5, 7.5, or 10 minute intervals. The particular session that the patient attended was determined non-systematically. The clinical content of the consultation was recorded on an encounter sheet and on audio-tape. At the end of each consultation patients were invited to complete a questionnaire designed to measure satisfaction with the consultation. The stress engendered in doctors carrying out surgery sessions booked at different intervals of time was also measured. At surgery sessions booked at 5 minute intervals, compared with 7.5 and 10 minute intervals, the doctors spent less time with the patients and identified fewer problems, and the patients were less satisfied with the consultation. Blood pressure was recorded twice as often in surgery sessions that were booked at 10 minute intervals compared with those booked at 5 minute intervals. There was no evidence that patients who attended sessions booked at shorter intervals received more prescriptions, were investigated or referred more often to hospital specialists, or returned more often for further consultations within four weeks. There was no evidence that the doctors experienced more stress in dealing with consultations that were booked at 5 minute intervals than at consultations booked at 7.5 and 10 minute intervals, though they complained of shortage of time more often in surgery sessions that were booked at shorter intervals. This study looked at the effect of different appointment time intervals on process and outcome measures in the consultation. Over a five-month period patients attending a two-partner surgery were non-systematically allocated to appointments at five, 10 or 15 minute intervals. Consultations were audiotaped and analysed. When appointments were scheduled at longer intervals, doctors asked significantly more questions and made significantly more statements explaining the problem and its management, while patients asked significantly more questions and made significantly more statements of their own ideas about the problem. In consultations booked at shorter intervals patients were significantly more likely to report in satisfaction questionnaires that they had little or far too little time available. The implications of the results for future planning are discussed. Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies.
                Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes.
                A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables.
                No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects.
                Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time. To see whether extending appointment length from seven and a half minutes or less to 10 minutes per patient would increase health promotion in general practice consultations.
                Controlled trial of 10 minute appointments. Consultations were compared with control surgeries in which the same doctors booked patients at their normal rate (median six minutes per patient).
                10 general practices in Nottinghamshire.
                16 general practitioners were recruited. Entry criteria were a booking rate of eight or more patients an hour, a wish for longer consultations, and plans to increase appointment length.
                Duration of consultations; recording of blood pressure, weight, and cervical cytology in the medical record; recording of advice about smoking, alcohol, diet, exercise, and immunisation in the medical record; reporting of the above activities by patients.
                Mean consultation times were 8.25 minutes in the experimental sessions and 7.04 and 7.16 minutes in the control sessions. Recording of blood pressure, smoking, alcohol consumption, and advice about immunisation was significantly more frequent in the experimental sessions, and the proportion of consultations in which one or more items of health education were recorded in the medical notes increased by an average of over 6% in these sessions. Patients more often reported discussion of smoking and alcohol consumption and coverage of previous health problems in the experimental sessions. There was little change in discussion of exercise, diet, and weight or cervical cytology activity.
                Shortage of time is a major factor in general practitioners' failure to realise their potential in health promotion. General practice should be organised so that doctors can run 10 minute appointment sessions.
The findings of this review do not provide sufficient evidence to support or resist a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost effectiveness.