Time for change? A comparative analysis of GPs' opinions on appointment length.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The research on the benefits, disadvantages and factors that affect appointment length in general practice is fragmented. There is a need to draw the evidence together and who better to assess this than those on the front line. AIM: To investigate GPs' opinions on appointment length, including the factors that affect appointment length, its impact on doctors and the validity of increasing appointment length. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to six general practices in Bristol and was completed by 30 GPs (response rate = 100%). Analysis of current appointment length, satisfaction and the ideal length was undertaken, alongside thoughts about the advantages and disadvantages of longer appointments. Ethical approval was successfully sought from Student Research Ethics Committee. RESULTS: Most doctors have 10-minute appointments (n = 29); however, 90% (n = 27) wished for 15 minutes. Appointments overrunning was described as a constant problem and resulting in stress. Longer appointments were due to multiple problems in a single consultation, mental health and multimorbidity. There did not appear to be any variation in viewpoints with practices, clinician experience and session length. The benefits of a longer appointment were a greater ability to deal with complex conditions, improved decision making, stress reduction and time to talk about interventions. However, 93.3% (n = 28) of doctors were concerned that there would be less appointments available if appointment lengths increased. CONCLUSION: Most doctors would like longer appointments. In light of the concern about appointment availability, there needs to be research into whether this would substantiate.